Sable v. Hitchcock
New York Supreme Court
In homine replegiando. The declaration was as follows : “City and county of New York, to wit: Joseph Hitchcock was attached to answer unto one Effy Sable, of a plea wherefore he took, and taken, kept the said Effy, and whereupon the said Effy, by Peter Jay Munro, her attorney, complains that the said Joseph, on the first day of November, in the year of our Lord, 1796, at the city and county of New York,Yand at the first ward of the said city, took the said Effy, and her…
Read the full summary
In homine replegiando. The declaration was as follows : “City and county of New York, to wit: Joseph Hitchcock was attached to answer unto one Effy Sable, of a plea wherefore he took, and taken, kept the said Effy, and whereupon the said Effy, by Peter Jay Munro, her attorney, complains that the said Joseph, on the first day of November, in the year of our Lord, 1796, at the city and county of New York,Yand at the first ward of the said city, took the said Effy, and her taken, kept until, &C; whereby the said Effy saith, she is made worse, and hath damage to the value of 200/. and thereof she…
1Opinion of the CourtRadcliff, J.
On these pleadings, the question is, whether the disposition made of the plaintiff, by the executors of Samuel Ellis, to the defendant, was a sale, within the '^meaning of the act of the 22d February, 1788,(a) by which “ in order to prevent the further importation of slaves into this state,” it is enacted, that if any person shall sell as a slave within this state, any negro or other person who has been imported or brought into this state, after the 1st June, 1785, he shall be deemed guilty of a public of-fence, and forfeit 10(R. and the person so imported or brought into this state, shall be…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Tilghman v. TilghmanU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania · 1832
- Helm v. MillerNew York Supreme Court · 1820
- Helm v. MillerNew York Supreme Court · 1820