Boyce v. Tabb

ERROR to the Circuit Court for the District of Louisiana; the case being thus:

The thirty-fourth section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 enacts:

'That the laws of the several States. . . shall be regarded as rules of decision in trials at common law in the courts of the United States, in cases where they apply.'

This provision of law being in force, Boyce, on the 13th of February, 1861, gave to Tabb a promissory note, as the consideration for the sale of certain slaves. At the time the note was given, as ever before in Louisiana since it had been settled by the whites, slavery existed, and the sale of slaves was lawful. But in 1865 an amendment, the 13th, to the Constitution of the United States was adopted, in these words:

'Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude. . . shall exist within the United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction.'

And in 1867 the Supreme Court of Louisiana adjudged it to be a principle of jurisprudence in that State that contracts for the sale of persons were void, and should not be enforced in their courts. After this decision, that is to say, in July, 1868, Tabb sued Boyce on the note. Boyce pleaded that the consideration of the note was the sale of slaves, and that the decisions of the Supreme Court of Louisiana had fully and unequivocally established that all obligations thus contracted were void and of no effect.

The court thus charged:

'It is not a legal defence to a suit brought on a promissory note executed in this State on the 13th of February, 1861, by the holder against the maker thereof, to allege and prove that such note was given as the price, or a part of the price, of slaves sold to the maker.

'That such sale was at the time lawful and valid in the said State is a sufficient consideration for a note, and the obligation cannot be impaired by laws of a State passed subsequently to the date thereof.

'No law of the United States has impaired such obligation.'

Verdict and judgment having gone for the plaintiff, the defendant brought the case here.

Mr. P. Phillips, for the plaintiff in error, relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court of Louisiana, already referred to, and the thirty-fourth section of the Judiciary Act of 1789, above quoted.

Mr. L. L. Conrad, contra.

Mr. Justice DAVIS delivered the opinion of the court.