Van Metre v. Mitchell
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania
The constitution of the United States declares (article 4, § 3) that “no .person held to service or labour in one state under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation thereof, be discharged from such labour or service, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due”; and a law of congress (February 12th, 1793, § 3 [1 Stat. 302]) passed to give effect to the provision of the…
Read the full summary
The constitution of the United States declares (article 4, § 3) that “no .person held to service or labour in one state under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation thereof, be discharged from such labour or service, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due”; and a law of congress (February 12th, 1793, § 3 [1 Stat. 302]) passed to give effect to the provision of the constitution, enacts that when a person held to labour in any one of the United States, shall escape into any otner of them, the…
1Opinion of the CourtGrier, Circuit Justice
(charging jury), 3 [The plaintiff in this case claims to recover from the defendant, the sum of $500, being the penalty given by the 4th section of the act of congress of the 12th of February, 1793, against persons who “harbour or conceal fugitives from labour.” The declaration avers: 1st, that, by the laws of Virginia, a certain person named Jared, was held to service and labour by the plaintiff; 2nd, that Jared escaped into the commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and, 3rd, that the defendant, with notice or knowledge of these facts, did har-bour and conceal the said Jared, contrary to the act of…
2Cited by2 opinions
- State v. LacoshusSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1950
- United States v. GrantU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon · 1893