Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Property Rules and Slavery: The Emancipation Case

    Uploaded by

    MissPardis
    103 views1 page
    The case involved a slave owner, Elisha Brazealle, who took his slave son and the son's mother to Ohio, where he emancipated them. Brazealle then returned with them to Mississippi and left his property to his emancipated son in his will. Other heirs challenged this, arguing the inheritance was illegal under Mississippi law. The court found that Brazealle went to Ohio simply to avoid Mississippi law, and that enforcing the emancipation in Mississippi would go against the state's policy and beliefs, since slaves could not own property or be freed without legislative action in Mississippi. The court affirmed the lower court's ruling in favor of the plaintiff heirs.

    Original Description:

    Hinds v Brazealle

    Original Title

    Hinds v Brazealle

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The case involved a slave owner, Elisha Brazealle, who took his slave son and the son's mother to Ohio, where he emancipated them. Brazealle then returned with them to Mississippi and left his property to his emancipated son in his will. Other heirs challenged this, arguing the inheritance was illegal under Mississippi law. The court found that Brazealle went to Ohio simply to avoid Mississippi law, and that enforcing the emancipation in Mississippi would go against the state's policy and beliefs, since slaves could not own property or be freed without legislative action in Mississippi. The court affirmed the lower court's ruling in favor of the plaintiff heirs.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    103 views1 page

    Property Rules and Slavery: The Emancipation Case

    Uploaded by

    MissPardis
    The case involved a slave owner, Elisha Brazealle, who took his slave son and the son's mother to Ohio, where he emancipated them. Brazealle then returned with them to Mississippi and left his property to his emancipated son in his will. Other heirs challenged this, arguing the inheritance was illegal under Mississippi law. The court found that Brazealle went to Ohio simply to avoid Mississippi law, and that enforcing the emancipation in Mississippi would go against the state's policy and beliefs, since slaves could not own property or be freed without legislative action in Mississippi. The court affirmed the lower court's ruling in favor of the plaintiff heirs.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    Property Rules and Slavery

    The Emancipation of Enslaved Persons

    Hinds v. Brazealle

    3 Miss. (2 How.) 837 (1838)


    Pages 42-44 Integrating Spaces

    Facts: Elisha Brazealle had a son with his slave. He took them both to Ohio and emancipated
    them. He then returned with them to Mississippi and lived out his life. He put his son down in
    his will to inherit all his property. He died and his son and the mother of the son took over his
    property. Other heirs of his then took action claiming that the inheritance was illegal under
    Mississippi law. Court found that he went to Ohio just to get away from laws in Miss. and that
    enforcing that would be against policy. That a slave could only be free in Miss. under legislative
    action and could not have any property.

    Procedural History: Found for P. D appealed.

    Issue: Did the transfer of deed to his son (slave) in another state where slaves could free, still
    hold in a state where slaves could not hold property?

    Holding: Affirmed

    Reasoning: No, it was against the law of Miss. and enforcing the Ohio law would detriment the
    policy and beliefs of Miss.

    RULE:

    You might also like