Groves v. Slaughter

40 U.S. 449 (1841)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Slaughter (P) instituted a suit by petition against Grovers (P) on a promissory note for the sum of seven thousand eight hundred and seventy-five dollars for nonpayment. In the second case, the suit had been instituted on a promissory note for seven thousand dollars, also drawn by John W. Brown, payable at the Commercial Bank at Natchez, to R. M. Roberts, or order, at Natchez, and endorsed by him and the other plaintiffs in error, dated 20th December 1836, payable and negotiable twelve months after date, and regularly protested for non-payment. The answers of Ds stated that P did introduce into the state of Mississippi, after the first day of May 1833, the slaves for which the notes were given, as merchandise, and for sale. Ds alleged that the cause or consideration for which the notes were given is null and void, the notes are null and void, and of no effect; because the contracts on which they are founded are in direct violation of the constitution of the state of Mississippi, which expressly prohibits the introduction of slaves into that state, as merchandise or for sale, after the first day of May 1833. P stipulated to the facts of importation. The slaves have never been returned to P, nor tendered to him by any of the parties to the notes sued on. The constitution of the state of Mississippi, adopted in 1832, provided, in the 2d section, title 'slaves,' as follows: 'The introduction of slaves into this state, as merchandise, or for sale, shall be prohibited from and after the first day of May 1833: provided, the actual settler or settlers, shall not be prohibited from purchasing slaves in any state in this Union, and bringing them into this state for their own individual use, till the year 1845.' An act of the legislature of the state was required to carry it into effect; and no law on the subject of the prohibition in the constitution was passed until 1837. The court held for P as the act was not valid until 1937. The case went up to the Court of Appeals and was there affirmed. D appealed