Manning v. Cordell
Supreme Court of Missouri
Horror from the St. Louis Circuit Court. 1st. That so far from any assent or understanding between the plaintiff and defendant being necessary to have been shown, neither the assent should have been exhibited, nor the understanding had, if the law be obeyed. 3. Story’s comm, on const. 665-27 sect, of the 3rd art. of const. of Mo. 9th sect, bill of rights Mo. 6 art. amdt. of constitution 105. 2. That the defendants refusal to employ counsel to defend his slave, is to be…
Read the full summary
Horror from the St. Louis Circuit Court. 1st. That so far from any assent or understanding between the plaintiff and defendant being necessary to have been shown, neither the assent should have been exhibited, nor the understanding had, if the law be obeyed. 3. Story’s comm, on const. 665-27 sect, of the 3rd art. of const. of Mo. 9th sect, bill of rights Mo. 6 art. amdt. of constitution 105. 2. That the defendants refusal to employ counsel to defend his slave, is to be considered as an act of obedience to the constitution of this State, as every man is presumed to know the laws of the…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion-of the Court by
Napton Judge.
A slave, the property of Cordell, was indicted in the circuit court of St. Louis, for a felony, and the court assigned the plaintiff in error as counsel for the slave.
The plaintiff in error brought suit against the master, for professional services in defending his slave. On the trial, the court instructed the jury, that if they believed that the plaintiff acted as counsel for the slave,. upon an understanding *474with the defendant, that he should be paid for his service» they should find for plaintiff; but if they'should be of opinion, that the plaintiff…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Overton v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1877