Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

2 La. 408

Bocod v. Jacobs

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided May 15, 1831

Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 1831-05-15

This suit was brought to rescind the sale of aslave who, it was alleged, was in the habit of running away. The evidence showed that the slave run away once, while owned by the defendant, but was apprehended in a few days and committed to jail. The sale to the plaintiff was effected through a broker, who represented the slave as a good subject.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently February 1931

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1831-05-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Martin, J.

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2The recision of the sale of a slave is claimed by the ven-dee, on the ground that he was in the habit of running away before the sale, in the knowledge of the vender, who, nevertheless, alleged, as it is said, that he was a good subject.—

¶3The plea was the general issue, and the defendant is appellant, of a judgment of recision.

¶4The evidence is, that the slave ran away once while he was owned by the vender, and was absent a few days only.

¶5When he was arrested he gave to himself and his owner many names. Soon after the sale he ran away a second time. The vender’s broker, when bargaining with that of the vendee, represented the slave as a good subject.

¶6The plaintiff’s Counsel has relied on the case of Sykes vs. *410Allen, 2d Martin, N. S.; and has cited Syrey, Pothier and Toullier.

. , " ! A slave’s misrepresentation of his that of'his'master, not^a^uffident circumstance to imply the habit of running away stance! Single mposterior™^11 the someS weíght^in proving ^the exis-. oushaMt^but^he ning fawayf after the sale added to a fore, does not es-habit an an 6n0rno?haffecteder by the assertion of Ins broker tbcifc tbe slave is a good character "SisCh not sisteiRte with^the circumstance of his having absented himself for a few days.

¶7We have a special provision in our Code by which this case must be determined. — Civil Code, 2505.

¶8If a slave has run away once, he is to be considered as hav- # . ing the habit of running away, if he stay away more than one month: so if he absent himself twice for several days,

¶9We do not think that the slave’s misrepresentation of his 0wn name and that of his master, is a sufficient circumstance ' . . . . to authorize us to imply the habit from a single instance.

¶10Circumstances posterior to the sale may have some weight in the scale of evidence in determining on the existence of a previous habit; but we do not think that the mere fact of runn'n§ away immediately after the sale, added to a single instance before, may be received as evidence of an anterior habit. It may be the consequence of the displeasure of be-so^ — of his dislike of the new owner.

¶11Neither ought the vender to be affected by his broker’s assertion, that the slave was a good subject. Giving him such a character is not absolutely inconsistent with the cir-cumstance of his having once absented himself from his owner’s house for a few days.

¶12It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed, that the judgment of the District Court be annulled, avoided, and reverseh; arid proceeding to give such a judgment as, in our opinion, ought to have been given below, it is ordered, ad- . . . judged, and decreed, that there be judgment for the defendant, with costs in both courts.

/2/la/408 · .json · Public domain