Smith v. Hoff
New York Supreme Court
Assumpsit, on a promissory note, made by the defendant, payable to the plaintiff. The consideration was a negro man, purchased by the defendant of the plaintiff, February 1815. In 1800, the plaintiff and Peter Smith owned the negro. He asked permission to work for his freedom; for which they agreed to take £80, payable in 3 years; and that he might earn the money by his labour, and pay it over to one ° J J Harden.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, on a promissory note, made by the defendant, payable to the plaintiff. The consideration was a negro man, purchased by the defendant of the plaintiff, February 1815. In 1800, the plaintiff and Peter Smith owned the negro. He asked permission to work for his freedom; for which they agreed to take £80, payable in 3 years; and that he might earn the money by his labour, and pay it over to one ° J J Harden. He accordingly left their service, and afterwards paid $31,75, previous to Feb. 19th, 1801. Nothing more being paid, the plaintiff ordered him to return to his service. He refused…
1Opinion of the Court
Curia, per Woodworth, J.
It is contended on the part ■of the defendant, that the agreement was a manumission ; that to enable the negro to perform his part of the contract, it was necessary he should.have all the rights of a freeman, so as to be capable of making contracts, working for whom he pleased, and collecting his wages. If it is to be understood, that the plaintiff actually parted with his right to the ■services, in consideration of the promise to pay £80, within three years, I incline to think it would be á manumission : but I do not understand the agreement in this manner ; it was…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- In re MickelNew York Supreme Court · 1817
- Wells v. LaneNew York Supreme Court · 1812