Black Southerners' Suits Against their Former Masters: Cases and Teaching Resources

I'm back for a final week of blogging about the research in my book Litigating Across the Color Line. Today I'll be discussing the cases that I found between former slaves and their former masters and the heirs of both parties. These cases make up about two-thirds of the appellate civil cases between black and white litigants in the eight states I examined during the Reconstruction era (1865-1877) and about one-third of such appellate cases during the two decades after Reconstruction (1878-1899). These cases are a particularly rich source to examine African Americans' experiences during slavery and their shifting interactions with their former masters and mistresses after emancipation as well as an important source to examine the legal strategies that these groups used against each other in the years after emancipation.

Courtesy Mississippi Dept. of Archives & History

Cases involving former slaves and former masters are often intensely personal, with both parties testifying in court not only about their changed relations after the Civil War, but also about their decades of previous interactions with each other during slavery. Both former slaves and former masters characterized their experiences with each other during slavery in certain ways to win their suits. At times during trials, former masters argued that their former slaves were disloyal or dishonest. In contrast, some formerly enslaved men and women presented themselves as particularly hardworking or faithful. Other black litigants boldly challenged their former masters and their former masters' heirs, claiming that their former masters' heirs and executors had fraudulently taken funds directed for them or earned by them. At the same time, former slaves and former masters (and their heirs) both frequently drew on their long-term knowledge of each other to gain the advantage in their suits. Former slaves noted in their testimony conversations and experiences that they had had with their former masters to support their legal claims. Meanwhile, former slaveholders sometimes used their previous experiences with the black litigants to try to hurt former slaves' reputations.

In a number of cases, former slaves challenged their former masters' wills. At times, they asserted that bequests to send them to Liberia could be received without such migration. In the 1872 Missisippi case of Cowan v. Stamps a slaveholder named Abner Cowan had written a will in 1850 that directed that all of his slaves and their "increase" be sent to Africa after his death. According to the will, all of his property should be sold after his death to pay for their travel and any remaining funds were to be given to his former slaves for their "use and benefit" upon "their arrival on that Continent." However, Abner Cowan did not die until the end of 1864 and at the time, the area of Missisippi in which he lived was a no-man's land between Union and Confederate forces, making it impossible to initiate probate proceedings. After the war, about 30 of his former slaves became litigants in the civil action over his will and claimed that they should be able to receive the proceeds of his estate without immigrating to Liberia.

In other cases, former slaves challenged their former masters' ability to control them or their property after the war. In the 1869 North Carolina case of Buie v. Parker, Henry Buie had found a mule that had been abandoned by General Sherman's forces during the last months of the Civil War. At the time that he found the mule, his master had recently fled before the Union Forces, telling his slaves that "they could go to the Yankees or stay at home, as they pleased." Henry Buie remained on his former master's plantation, but when his master eventually returned after the war's end, he insisted on keeping the mule for himself. He continued working on the same plantation, though, now as paid labor. Matters came to a head sometime between the end of 1865 and the beginning of 1868, when Henry Buie's former master John Buie forcibly took possession of the mule. In response, the freedman made a claim to the local office of the Freedmen's Bureau which mobilized the Union Army to return the mule to the former slave. To try to regain the mule, his former master then filed a suit against him in the local county court. Henry Buie responded by hiring a lawyer of his own and requesting not only that he retain possession of the mule but also that the court award him "one hundred dollars damages" for his former master "taking and withholding" the mule.

In a few cases, former slaves litigated suits against their former masters claiming funds that they had earned while they had been enslaved. In the 1869 North Carolina case of Lattimore v. Dixon, Abner Lattimore claimed that his former master Thomas Dixon had stolen over $1,000 in promissory notes that he had earned as a slave through livestock trading and money lending. In a limited number of other cases, the sexual violence that enslaved women experienced played a role in ensuing litigation. The 1877 Alabama case of Potter v. Gracie revolved around whether or not Mary Gracie -- who had a son fathered by her former master -- had been her former master's "mistress" after emancipation (a piece of property hung on the answer to this question).

In some of these cases, we can see the shifts in the interactions of former slaves and former masters taking place -- and at times such shifts seem to be spurred in part by the litigation itself. During the course of the litigation with his former master, for instance, Henry Buie changed his actual name, throwing off the surname of his former master and taking on the name Henry Parker. Appealing to the memory of their former masters could be a useful tactic to win cases, therefore, but litigation itself could also shift the relations of former masters and former slaves as well.

On my website, www.melissamilewski.com, I have put up transcripts and scans of the case files of a number of cases involving former slaves and former masters (including the cases mentioned here). After the jump below are also brief excerpts from the Lattimore v. Dixon and the Cowan v. Stamps cases.

Teaching Resource: Excerpts from Case File of City of Harrodsburg v. Sallee

As part of my guest blogging this month about the research in my new book Litigating Across the Color Line, I'm sharing excerpts from some of the archival case files of civil cases involving African Americans that I feature in my book. During the next few weeks, I'll also be sharing additional case file excerpts that could be used for teaching on my personal website, www.melissamilewski.com.

Today, I'm sharing an excerpt from the Kentucky case of City of Harrodsburg v. Sallee, which is

featured in Chapter 7, my chapter that examines African Americans' personal injury cases against white southerners between 1900 and 1920. You can read more about the case in my recent post on the Black Perspectives website. Here is a brief excerpt from the archival record of the case:

"City of Harrodsburg v. Sallee, 142 Ky. 829 (1911)

Courtesy Kentucky Dept. for Libraries and Archives

Petition: Rebecca Sallee Plaintiff vs. City of Harrodsburg Defendant

The Plaintiff Rebecca Sallee states that the Defendant City of Harrodsburg is a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Kentucky, and by the terms of its charter authorized and empowered to make contracts, to sue and be sued and to do all things necessary or pertaining to such a corporation, that by virtue of the laws under which it is incorporated the Defendant is and was at the times of the matters hereinafter complained of required to keep its side-walks and other public ways free from obstructions of every kind and in a reasonable safe condition, for the use of persons using and traveling thereon.

Plaintiff states that on the 7th day of October 1909 and for sometime prior thereto therewas, in or near the edge of the pavement on side-walk on the East side of College Street in front of lot of Chas. S. Vanarsdall a hole dug the depth of about two feet, and on the pavement was piled dirt, brick and piping making a dangerous and unsafe condition of said side-walk for the traveling public, that said obstruction were known by the defendant, its officers and agents, negligently suffered and permitted said hole and dirt heap to remain on said sidewalk for a considerable time, up to and including the night of October 7th 1909, when the injury hereinafter complained of occurred.

Plaintiff states that while said side-walk was thus obstructed to-wit, on the night of October 7th 1909, while the plaintiff was using said side-walk and was traveling thereon, from her home on Cornishville, street to the town, and without fault on the part of the Plaintiff, she stumbled over the said pile and heap of dirt, brick and piping and fell over same into the hole, whereby her limbs and body, were bruised and hurt and her back was wrenched and injured, producing thereon a large lump, and so violently wrenching, straining and spraining, plaintiff’s limbs and body, and by the shock to plaintiff’s nerves her kidneys were caused thereby to be disturbed and diseased and by reason of said fall and consequent injury as stated, plaintiff suffered great bodily pain and mental anguish, and has sustained loss of time and labor and was compelled to incur indebtedness for medical aid and attention, and her power to earn money has been permanently lessened. All of which was without the fault of plaintiff and was because of the negligence of defendant and to the damage of Plaintiff in the sum of Fifteen Hundred dollars.

Wherefore she prays judgement against the defendant for said sum of Fifteen Hundred Dollars, for her costs herein and for all proper relief.

B.F. Roach, Attorney for Plff.
______________________________________________

Official Stenographer’s Report of Testimony.

Be it remembered that on the trial of the above action at the May term 1910, of the Mercer Circuit Court, the Plaintiff testified on her own behalf and introduced witnesses on her behalf, as follows:

Rebecca Sallee, Examined by Atty for Plff.
1-Q- Where do you live?
Ans – On Cornishville pike.
2-Q- What is your age?
Ans – I was born in 1862.
3-Q- You are the wife of Jim Sallee?
Ans- Yes sir.
5-Q- And how many children have you?
Ans – Sixteen
6-Q- Where do you work?
Ans – For Mr. C.D. Thompson.
7-Q- What position did Mr. Thompson occupy in the City of Harrodsburg during last year.
Ans – He was Mayor of the City.

Landmark Cases in Restitution

We have one more newly paperbacked volume for you in Hart's Landmark Cases series: University College London's Charles Mitchell and Paul Mitchell, ed., Landmark Cases in the Law of Restitution. We missed the hardback edition in 2006, so here is the full information. From Hart Publishing:

It is now well established that the law of unjust enrichment forms an important and distinctive part of the English law of obligations. Restitutionary awards for unjust enrichment and for wrongdoing are clearly recognised for what they are. But prior to the last decade of the twentieth century the very existence of a separate law of unjust enrichment was controversial, its scope and content matters of dispute. In this collection of essays, a group of leading scholars reappraise some of the landmark cases in the area. Their investigations shed new light on some classic decisions, and persuasively invite readers to think again about some well-known authorities.

TOC after the jump.

Landmark Cases in Contracts

Here’s another volume in Hart’s Landmark Cases series that is now out in paperback: Landmark Cases in the Law of Contract, edited by Charles Mitchell and Paul Mitchell, both of University College London. We missed the hardback version when it came out in 2008, so here is the full account. From the press:

Landmark Cases in the Law of Contract offers twelve original essays by leading contract scholars. As with the essays in the companion volumes in this series, each essay takes as its focus a particular leading case, and analyses that case in its historical or theoretical context. The cases range from the early eighteenth- to the late twentieth-centuries, and deal with an array of contractual doctrines. Some of the essays call for their case to be stripped of its landmark status, whilst others argue that it has more to offer than we have previously appreciated. The particular historical context of these landmark cases, as revealed by the authors, often shows that our current assumptions about the case and what it stands for are either mistaken, or require radical modification. The book also explores several common themes which are fundamental to the development of the law of contract: for instance, the influence of commercial expectations, appeals to 'reason' and the significance of particular judicial ideologies and techniques.

TOC after the jump.

Landmark Cases in Torts

Another volume in the Landmark Cases by Hart Publishing came out in paperback in 2016. We didn't post on the hardback version when it originally came out in 2010, so here are the full details on Landmark Cases in the Law of Tort, edited by Charles Mitchell and Paul Mitchell, both of University College London. From the press:

Landmark Cases in the Law of Tort contains thirteen original essays on leading tort cases, ranging from the early nineteenth century to the present day. It is the third volume in a series of collected essays on landmark cases (the previous two volumes having dealt with restitution and contract). The cases examined raise a broad range of important issues across the law of tort, including such diverse areas as acts of state and public nuisance, as well as central questions relating to the tort of negligence. Several of the essays place cases in their historical context in ways that change our understanding of the case's significance. Sometimes the focus is on drawing out previously neglected aspects of cases which have been – undeservedly – assigned minor importance. Other essays explore the judicial methodologies and techniques that worked to shape leading principles of tort law.

So much of tort law turns on cases, and there are so many cases, that all but the most recent decisions have a tendency to become reduced to terse propositions of law, so as to keep the subject manageable. This collection shows how important it is, despite the constant temptation to compression, not to lose sight of the contexts and nuances which qualify and illuminate so many leading authorities.

TOC after the jump.

Landmark Cases in Land Law

Several new volumes in Hart Publishing’s Landmark Cases series came out in 2016. Here’s one: Landmark Cases in Land Law, edited by Nigel Gravells, University of Nottingham. 

From the press:

Landmark Cases in Land Law is the sixth volume in the Landmark Cases series of collected essays on leading cases (previous volumes in the series having covered Restitution, Contract, Tort, Equity and Family Law). The eleven cases in this volume cover the period 1834 to 2011, although, interestingly, no fewer than six of the cases were decided or reported in the 1980s. The names of the selected cases will be familiar to property lawyers. However, individually, the essays provide a reappraisal of the cases from a wide range of perspectives – focusing on their historical, social or theoretical context, highlighting previously neglected aspects and even questioning their perceived importance. Collectively, the essays explore several common themes that pervade the law of property – the numerus clausus principle, the conclusiveness of registration, the desirability of certainty in the law and the central question of the enforceability of interests through changes in ownership of land. This volume provides a collection of essays that will be of interest to academics, students and practitioners. –

Table of Contents after the jump.

Hutchinson on "great cases" and their stories

Allan C. Hutchinson, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University published Is Killing People Right? More Great Cases that Shaped the Legal World with Cambridge University Press in 2016. From the publisher:

"Great cases" are those judicial decisions around which the common law pivots. In a sequel to the instant classic Is Eating People Wrong?, this book presents eight new great cases from the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia. Written in a highly accessible yet rigorous style, it explores the social circumstances, institutions (lawyers, judges and courts) and ordinary people whose stories shaped the law. Across the courts' diverse and uncoordinated attempts to adapt to changing conditions and shifting demands, it shows the law as the living, breathing and down-the-street experience it really is. Including seminal cases in end of life, abortion and equal rights, this is an ideal introduction for students to legal history and jurisprudence.

Here's the Table of Contents:

1. Introduction: on the road (again)

2. Is killing people right? Law and the end of life

3. Oil on troubled waters: the consequences of civil liability

4. The politics of law: cats, pigeons and old chestnuts

5. The companies we keep: the moralities of business

6. Fifty shades of Brown: consent and the criminal law

7. Putting up a defence: sex, murder and videotapes

8. Wade-ing into controversy: a case of accidental activism

9. Playing a different tune: fairness in deal-making

10. Conclusion: surfing the tides.

Further information is available here.