Unknown County MsArchives Court.....Scudder, T 1834
************************************************
Copyright.  All rights reserved.
http://usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm
http://usgwarchives.net/ms/msfiles.htm
************************************************

File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by:
Deb Haines ddhaines@gmail.com December 8, 2005, 9:41 pm

Source: Reports Of Cases Adjudged In The Supreme Court Of Mississippi
Written: 1834
Recorded: 1818

T. & N. SCUDDER vs. JAMES SEALS.

pages 154-155

A refusal by a person without colour of title to restore slaves upon the 
demand of the true owner to his possession, is such a fraud as brings the case 
within the provisions of the Habeas Corpus act.

OPINION OF THE COURT-By THE HON. POWHATTAN ELLIS.

After the death of Nathaniel Scudder, his wife administered upon the estate, 
and at the sale of the personal property, Margaret Scudder, daughter of the 
deceased, purchased Diesy and Daniel, the negroes in controvery, for which she 
executed her promissory note. After the purchase she intermarried with one 
Thomas Seals, who reduced the negroes into possession, and worked them on the 
old lady’s plantation, but, separate and distinct from her crop. In July 1822, 
Mrs. Thomas Seals died, and her husband sold the standing crop, and hired the 
negroes to Thomas Scudder, one of the present defendants. The negroes were 
hired twice to Scudders, and finally came into the possession of T. Seals, who 
carried them to the house of James Seals, the plaintiff below, who purchased 
said negroes. The petition of James Seals, supported by the oath of D. Muse, 
states that Dicey and Daniel were either stolen or enticed out of his 
possession, some time in September last. Upon the hearing of the evidence on 
both sides, the judge had the property restored to the petitioner.

From the evidence introduced on the trial below, there cannot be a doubt in 
relation to the right of property. The only question for our consideration is, 
whether the petitioner has brought himself within the provisions of the 19th 
section of the habeas corpus act, which says:—"If any slave or slaves for life 
shall be taken or seduced out of the possession of the master, owner or 
overseers of such slave or slaves, by force, stratagem or fraud, and 
unlawfully detained in the possession of any other person," &c. The fact of 
the detention of the negroes by Scudder, when he must have known they did not 
belong to him, was an imposition upon the right of the plaintiff below, and 
will bring the case within, not only the letter, but the spirit of the 
statute. It was a trick—a stratagem, to deprive the owner of the possession of 
his property, otherwise they never would have been detained after legal demand 
being made. Dicey and Daniel being in the possession of Scudder, is evidence 
they were taken by him, until the contrary appears - and a refusal to deliver 
them over to the owner, is conclusive that he Wished to hold the property 
without even the colour of title. This amounts, (as I have before stated) to 
imposition, trick and stratagem, presenting a case liable to the operation of 
the statute in such case made and provided. I am of the opinion the Judgment 
of the court below ought to be affirmed.


Source: Reports of Cases Adjudged in the Supreme Court of Mississippi, June 
Term, 1818, By R. J. Walker, Reporter of the State. Natchez: Printed at the 
Courier and Journal Office, 1834.

File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/ms/unknown/court/scudder60gwl.txt

This file has been created by a form at http://www.genrecords.org/msfiles/

File size: 3.6 Kb