The Citing Slavery Project

The photo is a grey white background with dark grey text on top. The text reads: “INTERNATIONAL DAY FOR THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION. MARCH 21, 2024. @CITINGSLAVERY”

Today, March 21, is the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. To learn more about how the Citing Slavery Project is fighting to end racial bias in the legal field, visit
citingslavery.org
and www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/ma...

To learn more about the Citing Slavery Project, visit: www.citingslavery.org

The photo is a blue teal solid background with white text. The text reads at the top in large letters: “Name Unknown.” Below is a text box that reads: American slavery generated thousands of legal disputes, for issues ranging from the inheritance of enslaved persons, recovering monetary damages after the injury or death of an enslaved person, conversion of enslaved persons, freedom suits, and many more. Thousands of these cases which decided the fate of the enslaved persons never include their names. Today, we remember the unnamed enslaved persons impacted by the legal system that refused to even mention their names.

Day 29 of the Citing Slavery Project’s “29 Days of Remembrance for Black History Month.” Today, we remember the thousands upon thousands of enslaved persons impacted by the U.S. justice system, who remain unnamed in their case proceedings.

In resolving the issue of a breach of warranty, the court mentions in passing that Lucinda died of a lung disease.

www.citingslavery.org/court_cases/...

The photo reads the name “Lucinda” in large letters. Below is a textbox that reads “Content Warning: Death of an enslaved person.” Below this text box the text reads: “Badgett v. Broughton, 1 Ga. 591 (1846): Badgett sold an enslaved girl, Lucinda, to Broughton for $275. When the sale was made, Badgett made a warranty to Broughton that Lucinda was in sound mind and body. Shortly after, Broughton sold Lucinda to a new buyer, Attaway, for $275. Instead of executing a new bill of sale, Broughton endorsed the bill of sale he received from Badgett. Further, he refused to make a warranty of Lucinda’s sound mind and body to Attaway, but instead agreed to assign the previous warranty and bill of sale from Badgett to Attaway. Broughton brought a breach of warranty claim against Badgett, alleging that Lucinda was not sound, and had a lung disease, which she died from shortly after being sold to Attaway.”

- The photo reads the name “Lucinda” in large letters. The text box below reads: “The court held that “...the plaintiff below was entitled to recover at least the price paid to the defendant for the negro, proved to have been unsound at the time of the sale, and to have died afterwards.” Thus, the court said that Broughton could recover the $275 he paid for Lucinda. This case has been cited three times, most recently in 1964 ( Atlanta Tallow Co. v. John W. Eshelman & Sons, Inc., 110 Ga. App. 737 (1964)).”

⚠️ Content warning: death of an enslaved person. ⚠️ Day 28 of the Citing Slavery Projects “29 Days of Remembrance for Black History Month.” Today, we remember Lucinda. The court case revolved around liability for breach of warranty regarding Lucinda’s soundness. 🧵

www.citingslavery.org/court_cases/...

- The photo is a dark green solid background with white text. At the top, the text reads the name Arnold in large letters. Below the name the text reads: “Browne v. Johnson, 29 Tex. 40 (1867): An enslaver brought suit against the sheriff (Browne) in his personal capacity for damages caused by the sheriff’s negligence. Johnson, the plaintiff, enslaved a man named Arnold. Johnson gave Arnold to the sheriff to keep in custody until Arnold could be sold at auction. Arnold escaped custody and Johnson brought suit to recover the value of Arnold as an enslaved man. The suit was brought against Browne alone, not in his official capacity as sheriff.”

- The photo is a dark green solid background with white text. At the top, the text reads the name Arnold in large letters. Below the name the text reads: “The lower court found for Johnson since Browne had been burdened to prove he had "exercised ordinary prudence" in holding Arnold. The Supreme Court of Texas held that the burden of demonstrating negligence should have been placed on Johnson. Thus, the Supreme Court of Texas remanded the case to be tried under the direction that Johnson needs to demonstrate that Browne was negligent by allowing Arnold to escape his custody.”

Day 27. Today, we remember Arnold. Arnold’s enslaver had the sheriff take custody over Arnold until he could be sold, but Arnold escaped from custody. His enslaver sued the sheriff for damages caused by his negligence, but we do not know what happened to Arnold from this case.

James v. State, 28 Tenn. 308 (1848): This action was an appeal by James, a black man, of an indictment and conviction for selling spiritous liquors without a license. The question on appeal was whether James was actually indictable for the crime based on his asserted status as a free man or whether he was in fact still enslaved and should be treated as such under the law. James had previously been owned and enslaved by Benjamin Morrow, who, a few months before the indictment, had verbally freed James and allowed him to live as a free man. However, Tennessee law required the enslaver's assent and intent to free the enslaved person, plus approval from the county court to the enslaver's grant of manumission. In this case, Benjamin Morrow only offered a verbal grant of manumission to James without subsequently getting the action approved by the county court.

The Court held that James had a sort of incomplete right to his freedom: Morrow could not reassert dominion over him and re-subjugate him to slavery, but James was also not a free member of society as a result of Morrow's failure to properly petition the court for James' freedom. Further, the Court held that "by failing to petition the county court and give bond according to law, [Morrow] remains liable to all the penalties of the law as though he had never consented to his freedom." Under the slavery law of Tennessee, the Court held that "the master may be indicted for permitting [James] to act as a freeman and is liable to all the other consequences that would have existed if he had not consented to [James'] freedom." Thus, the Court reversed and remanded the case to proceed against James as a slave, not a freeman.

Day 26. Today, we remember James. Even though James’s enslaver verbally freed him, because the enslaver failed to obtain approval from the county court, James could be tried for crimes as an enslaved man, rather than a freeman.

www.citingslavery.org/court_cases/...

www.citingslavery.org/court_cases/...

#citingslaveryproject #legalhistory #blackhistory #blackhistorymonth #blackhistory365 #legaleducation

Day 25 of the Citing Slavery Project’s “29 Days of Remembrance.” Today we remember Nelly and Patsy who successfully asserted their right to freedom pursuant to their enslaver’s will, but may have been forced to leave the stay because of their free status.

Johnson v. Perry case: cite.case.law/tenn/21/569/
Tire Shredders case: cite.case.law/sw3d/15/849/
J & D Towing case: cite.case.law/sw3d/478/649/

J & D Towing, LLC v. American Alternative Insurance Corp., 478 S.W.3d 649 (2016): J & D Towing sued for damages after a negligent motorist collided with its only towing truck and rendered it a total loss. The question before the Supreme Court of Texas was if J & D Towing could recover for both the value of the towing truck and for lost profits. In reaching its 2016 decision for damages owed for a damages tow truck, the Supreme Court of Texas cites to multiple cases involving the loss of value of enslaved persons, including Johnson v. Perry.

Finally, in 2016, the Supreme Court of Texas cited to David’s case to resolve the question of whether a tow company could sue for lost profits after the tow truck was damaged.

Tire Shredders, Inc. v. ERM-North Central, Inc., 15 S.W.3d 849 (1999): Tire Shredders sued ERM for the negligent destruction of a shredding machine. In determining damages, the Court cited to Johnson v. Perry, stating the following in support of awarding damages pertaining to a tire shredder machine: “The court held that, if the injury had been temporary, the plaintiff could recover damages for the loss of the slave’s service. See id. at 572. If, however, the slave had been permanently injured, the plaintiff could recover damages for the deteriorated value of the slave in lieu of damages for loss of service. See id. Finally, if he had been killed, the plaintiff would have been entitled to damages equal to the actual value of the slave but would not have been entitled to recover damages for loss of the slave’s service.” Thus, in 1999, the Tennessee Court of Appeals compared a damaged tire shredder machine to the injury of the enslaved man David.

In 1999, the Tennessee Court of Appeals compared a damaged tire shredder machine to the injury of David and his “lost value” as an enslaved person.

Johnson v. Perry, 21 Tenn. 569 (1841): David was an enslaved man owned by Perry. A verbal altercation allegedly took place between David and Johnson, the defendant. In response, Johnson illegally apprehended David to “personally chastise” him. While Johnson was preparing to tie up David to punish him (i.e. assault him), David escaped and ran from the defendant. While David was running away, he fell off a four feet tall precipice and permanently injured his knee and leg. David’s enslaver, Perry, sued Johnson for trespass, because “the value of the slave was impaired by the injury.” The Tennessee Supreme Court held that Perry, David’s enslaver, could recover for damages caused by the deterioration of the value of the enslaved man caused by his permanent injury in lieu of recovering damages for the loss of service. This case has been cited nine times, most recently in 1999 and 2016. Swipe to read how the Tennessee Courts have cited to this case in modern times.

TW: assault on an enslaved person. Today, we remember David, an enslaved man who was injured in his escape from an attempted assault. The case brought by his enslaver to recover damages for David’s lost value as an enslaved person has been cited as recently as 1999 and 2016…🧵

The photo is a salmon solid background with black text. At the top in a box the text reads: “Day 22. Black History Month.” Below, in large letters, is the name Aleck. Below the name is a text box of smaller text. The text reads: “Aleck v. Tevis, 34 Ky. 242 (1836): A boy named Aleck filed suit for his freedom against his enslaver, Samuel Tevis. Aleck was previously enslaved by Cloe Pen, who emancipated Aleck in her last will prior to her death. The Court of Appeals of Kentucky held that Aleck was free when the defendant enslaved him, and that the defendant had no authority to "claim his services, or to control him." Not only did the Court restore Aleck's status as free, but it also held that the defendant owed to Aleck the value of his services for the entire time that defendant wrongfully enslaved Aleck.”

Today is Day 22 of the Citing Slavery Project’s “29 Days of Remembrance for Black History Month.” Today we remember and honor Aleck, who successfully sued for his freedom as well as the value of his services for the time of his wrongful enslavement.

cite.case.law/ky/34/242/

The photo is a black solid background with white text. At the top in a box the text reads: “Day 21. Black History Month.” Below, in large letters, is the name Nancy. Below the name is a text box of smaller text. The text reads: Boyce v. Nancy, 34 Ky. 236 (1836): Nancy was an enslaved woman who brought an action of trespass against Robert Boyce, who enslaved her despite the fact that she was emancipated. Nancy previously lived in Maryland, where she was enslaved by Rebecca Rings. When Nancy was six years old, Rebecca Ring's will declared that Nancy should be free when she turned twenty-one years old. It was undisputed that Nancy was older than twenty-one years old. The Court held for Nancy, restoring her freedom.”

Today is Day 21 of the Citing Slavery Project’s “29 Days of Remembrance for Black History Month.” Today we remember and honor Nancy, who successfully sued for her freedom.

cite.case.law/ky/34/236/

Pournell v. Harris, 29 Ga. 736 (1860): An enslaver named James Haily executed a will, which lent to his granddaughter, Jincey Jordan, several enslaved persons. The enslaved persons were named Edy, Fortune, Rody, Ferriby and Littice. Once Jincey Jordan died, the will provided that her heir may make "use and service" of the enslaved persons. However, if Jordan died without any descendants, then the enslaved persons would be given to Hailey's other grandchildren. Pournell was a descendant of Jincey Jordan and argued that at Jincey's death, Pournell and his wife would be the heirs of Jincey, and thus entitled to ownership of the enslaved persons, not Haily's grandchildren. The Georgia Supreme Court held that there was a distinction between the gift Haily gave to his grandchildren and the "use of service" Haily allowed Jincey to have. The court affirmed Haily's will as valid, confirming Haily's grandchildren as the legal owners of the aforementioned enslaved persons.”

Today is Day 20 of the Citing Slavery Project’s “29 Days of Remembrance for Black History Month.” Today, we remember Edy, Fortune, Rody, Ferriby, and Littice. The ownership over these five enslaved individuals was at issue in Pournell v. Harris (1860).

www.citingslavery.org/court_cases/...

Under the condition that the nephew ensure she and her children received all the privileges of being free. However, because this was a condition inconsistent with the gift, inconsistent with the laws, and incompatible with slavery, the court deemed the will provision void.

The text reads: “Day 18. Black History Month.” Below, in large letters, is the name Maria. Below this name is a smaller text box that reads: Sibley v. Maria, 2 Fla. 553 (1849): Maria brought an action of trespass against Sibley who enslaved Maria in spite of Maria’s prior emancipation. Maria had previously been enslaved by William Oliphant in South Carolina. Before his death, Oliphant created a will in which he devised to his nephew William C. Hollingsworth all of his property, including Maria and her four children. Oliphant’s will directed his nephew to ensure that Maria and her four children be allowed all the privileges of a free person, and also that Maria receive $250. While the Supreme Court of Florida acknowledged the testator’s intent, the Court held that the will provision giving Maria the privileges of a free person was void because it was a condition inconsistent with the gift, inconsistent with the laws of South Carolina, and incompatible with slavery.”

Day 18 of the Citing Slavery Project’s “29 Days of Remembrance for Black History Month.” Today, we remember Maria. Maria’s enslaver unsuccessfully attempted to emancipate her by devising her and her four children to his nephew…

This case has been cited nine times, most recently in 1987.

www.citingslavery.org/court_cases/...

The photo is a dark blue solid background with white text. At the top in a box the text reads: “Day 17. Black History Month.” Below, in large letters, is the name Letty. Below this name is a smaller text box that reads: “Booth v. Terrell, 16 Ga. 20 (1854): This case involved an action of trover regarding an enslaved woman named Letty and her seven unnamed children. Letty and her children were enslaved by a man named Richmond Hodges, who loaned Letty to Mrs. Terrell. The dispute was whether the parties agreed that upon Mrs. Terrell’s death if Letty and her children were to be returned to Richmond and his heirs, or if Letty and her children were to be kept by Mrs. Terrell’s heirs. The Court held that the agreement between the parties was a loan, not a gift. Thus, Letty and her offspring needed to be returned to Richmond Hodges if living, or to his heirs if he was dead. This case has been cited nine times, and was most recently used as good legal precedent in 1987 (Cabral v. White, 181 Ga

Day 17 of the Citing Slavery Project’s “29 Days of Remembrance for Black History Month.” Today, we remember Letty and her seven unnamed children. Letty was hired out by her enslaver, and the issue for the court was who had the legal right to Letty and her children after the hirer died.

“Cornish v. Willson, 6 Gill 299 (1848): Stephen Cornish filed a petition to the court alleging that he was a freed man held in bondage and enslaved by Jacob Willson. In response, Jacob Willson alleged that Stephen was not entitled to his freedom. Stephen was previously enslaved by Beachamp Harper, who provided for Stephen’s manumission in his will. Stephen lived for several years as a free man following Harper’s death, and Stephen worked and supported himself. The County Court held that because the decedent’s estate still had outstanding debts to be paid, there was nothing restricting the estate executor from selling the manumitted enslaved persons to pay off the estate debts. The Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed this holding. This case has been cited twenty times, most recently in 2015 (Cunningham v. Feinberg, 441 Md. 310 (2015)).”

Day 16. Today, we remember and honor Stephen Cornish. In this case, the Court held that the estate executor could re-enslave and sell Stephen to settle estate debts. This case has been cited 20 times, most recently in 2015 (Cunningham v. Feinberg, 441 Md. 310 (2015)).

cite.case.law/gill/6/299/

cite.case.law/md/17/413/ (case pending upload to the Citing Slavery Project database)

could take the willing enslaved persons out of their state— Maryland —to be free. Josias and the other enslaved persons filed for their freedom in Maryland. The Court held for the executor, stating that the condition precedent of leaving the state had to be satisfied for them to become free persons.

“Maddox vs. Negroes Price, 17 Md. 413 (1861): Josias Price and several other unnamed persons were enslaved by Eleanor W. Turner before her death. In her will, she bequeathed her enslaved persons to her estate executor, to be held in trust, to be hired out from year to year to pay off her debts and legacies. After her debts were settled, her will stated that if the executor wished, he could take the willing enslaved persons to a different state where he could manumit them. If any of his enslaved persons refused to be taken out of Maryland, then they could be sold. Josias Price, and eleven others, petitioned for their freedom under her will. The Circuit Court found that the petitioners were entitled to their freedom in Maryland, and the defendant appealed. The Maryland Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision, holding that “the petitioners do not become entitled to freedom unless they are removed out of the State of Maryland.”

Day 15 of the Citing Slavery Project’s “29 Days of Remembrance for Black History Month.” Today, we remember and honor Josias Price. His enslaver provided in her will that the estate executor could hire out the enslaved persons to pay off her estate’s debts, and afterwards…🧵

However, the court dismissed her petition, holding that because slavery was practiced in Madagascar, Mary needed to demonstrate that her ancestors were free in Madagascar in order to be free in Maryland. We do not know what happened to Mary afterwards.

www.citingslavery.org/court_cases/...

Mary petitioned for her freedom, arguing that because she was imported from a country in which slavery was not common practice, she could not be held as an enslaved person under the laws of Maryland.

The photo is a salmon orange solid background with black text. At the top in a box the text reads: “Day 14. Black History Month.” Below, in large letters, is the name Mary. Below the name is a text box of smaller text. The text reads: “Mary v. Vestry of William & Mary's Parish, 3 Md. 501 (1796): Mary was imported from her home of Madagascar to the United States and enslaved. Mary filed a freedom petition, citing to a law that stated whenever an individual is bought from a country where slavery is not commonly practiced and is sold within the United States, the individual is not a slave under the laws of Maryland. However, the Court dismissed her freedom petition, holding that since slavery was practiced in Madagascar, the burden was on Mary to establish that her ancestors were free in Madagascar in order to claim her freedom in the United States.”

Day 14 of the Citing Slavery Project’s “29 Days of Remembrance for Black History Month.” Today, we remember Mary, who was enslaved and imported from her home country of Madagascar to the States. 🧵

The Court held that the evidence showed the incorrect date was clearly an accident, and restored Susan’s freedom.

cite.case.law/ky/36/30/ (pending upload to the Citing Slavery Project database)