Burke v. Gaines et al.

THIS case was brought up from the Supreme Court of the State of Arkansas, by a writ of error issued under the twentyfifth section of the judiciary act.

The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

It was argued by Mr. Lawrence for the defendants in error, no counsel appearing for the plaintiff in error.

Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered the opinion of the

court.

This is a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the State of Arkansas. A brief summary of the case will be sufficient to show that this court have no jurisdiction.

The defendants in error, who were the plaintiffs in the court below, brought their action of ejectment in the State court to recover certain premises described in the declaration.

By a statute of Arkansas, a party may maintain an ejectment upon an equitable title. And the defendants in error, in order to show such a title in themselves, offered in evidence certain documents tending to prove that a certain Ludovicus Belding had, by settlement in 1829, acquired a pre-emption right to the land in question, and that they are his heirs at law, and have paid to the proper officer the price fixed by the Government.

The plaintiff in error offered no evidence of title in himself, although he was in possession of the land. And at the trial, the defendants in error asked the court to instruct the jury that the papers and documents read in evidence by them were sufficient to maintain the action, if the defendant in error was in possession of any part of the land at the commencement of the suit, and also that they were entitled to recover, by way of damages, reasonable rents and profits.

The plaintiff in error, on his part, asked the court to instruct the jury that the certificates and documents offered by the defendants in error were void, and conferred no title to the premises.

This is the substance of the instructions asked for by the respective parties, although drawn out at greater length, and shows the questions presented for the decision of the court. The court gave the instructions asked for by the defendants in error, and refused those requested by the plaintiff.

Under these instructions, the jury found a verdict in favor of the defendants in error, and a judgment was entered accordingly, which was afterwards affirmed in the Supreme Court of the State; and upon that judgment, this writ of error was brought.

Bulkley v. Honold.

It appears, therefore, that no right was claimed by the plaintiff in error under any act of Congress, or under any authority derived from the United States. He merely objected to the validity of the title claimed by the defendants in error. As the case appears on the record, he was a mere trespasser, holding possession in opposition to a title claimed under the United States. The decision of the State court in favor of the title thus claimed by the defendants in error can certainly give the plaintiff no right to bring this writ under the twenty-fifth section of the act of 1789. He claimed no right under the United States, and consequently can have no foundation for his writ of error.

The case cannot be distinguished from that of Fulton and others v. McAffea, (16 Pet., 149,) and the writ must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

GEORGE BULKLEY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. CHRISTIAN' HONOLD.

The law of Louisiana imposes on the seller the obligation of warranting the thing sold against its hidden defects, which are those which could not be discovered by simple inspection; and the purchaser may retajn the thing sold, and have an action for reduction of the price by reason of the difference in value between the thing as warranted and as it was in fact.

Where a vessel was purchased, which was then partly laden as a general ship for an outward foreign voyage, and after she went to sea she was found to be unseaworthy, and had to return, the defects were hidden defects, under the above law. A vessel is included within the terms of the law.

The purchaser was not bound to renounce the vessel. This privilege is provided for in another and distinct article of the code.

The contract must be governed by the laws of Louisiana, where it was made and performed.

Such a sale is not governed by the general commercial law, but by the civil code of Louisiana.

THIS case was brought up, by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of the United States for the eastern district of Louisi

ana.

The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

It was argued by Mr. Taylor for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. Benjamin for the defendant.

Mr. Taylor contended that, if the law of Louisiana governed, there was error, because—

1. The defect in the ship was an apparent defect, in the legal sense of the term, the existence of which imposed no responsibility on the vendor.

2. Because the obligation of warranty, implied in sales of

Bulkley v. Honold.

ships, does not extend to cases of decay, to which they are, from their nature, liable.

3. The defendant in error, by failing to offer to place the defendant in the court below in the position he was in before the sale, by tendering back the ship, &c., lost all right to maintain his action in redhibition or in diminution of the price.

He contended, also, that the case was not governed by the law of Louisiana, but by the law of New York, where the vendor had his domicil, or by the commercial, law of the United States.

Mr. Justice CURTIS delivered the opinion of the court. The defendant in error brought his action in the Circuit Court of the United States for the eastern district of Louisiana, founded on the allegations, that he purchased at New Orleans, of the plaintiff in error and others, a vessel called the Ashland, for the sum of $27,500; that the vessel was then partly laden as a general ship for an outward foreign voyage, and it was agreed the purchaser should take on himself the expenses and advantages of that condition of the vessel; that, accordingly, the cargo was completed and the vessel went to sea, but was found to be unseaworthy, returned to New Orleans, the cargo was removed, and the hull examined and ascertained to be so decayed and rotten as to be of no value without very extensive and costly repairs. The court found these facts proved, and allowed to the plaintiff below damages equal to the difference between the price paid and the actual value of the vessel, adding the expenses of the vessel and cargo, incurred by the plaintiff below by reason of the sale.

The petition averred a fraudulent concealment by the vendors of the defects of the vessel, but the court found this not proved.

The law of Louisiana imposes on the seller the obligation of warranting the thing sold against its hidden defects. (Civ. Code, arts. 2,450, 2,451.) Hidden defects are those which could not be discovered by simple inspection. (Civ. Code, art. 2,497. In case the seller desires to rescind the contract by reason of the breach of such a warranty, he may do so by an action of redhibition. But he may also retain the thing sold, and have an action for reduction of the price by reason of the difference in value between the thing as warranted and as it was in fact. (Civ. Code, arts. 2,519, 2,520.) And in this action only such a part of the price as will indemnify the vendee for the difference between the value of the thing as warranted and the thing actually sold, together with the expenses incurred on the thing, after deducting its fruits, can be recovered. (Civ. Code, arts. 2,522, 2,509.)

Bulkley v. Honold.

The Circuit Court appears to have strictly pursued these rules in framing its judgment.

But it is insisted the defects were apparent, and not hidden defects. We do not think so. Certainly they were discoverable, but not on what the code terms simple inspection. It was necessary to strip or bore the vessel, to ascertain the state of its frame; and this, we think, the vendee was not bound to do under the law of Louisiana.

It is further argued that the implied warranty does not extend to the soundness of a vessel, because it is known to all, that, from the nature of the thing, it must decay, and the purchaser may be considered as knowing this, and making allowance therefor in the price. It is true that vessels must, after some time, decay; and it is also true that most subjects of sale must at some time become of less or of no value. But it is not true that vessels exposed to sale are generally unsound and unseaworthy. The buyer has no notice, from the nature of the article, that any particular vessel offered to be sold is unseaworthy by reason of the decayed state of that part of its frame which is concealed from sight. We do not perceive, therefore, why any different rule should be applicable to vessels, from that applied to most other subjects of sale. (See De Armas v. Gray et al., 10 Louis. R., 575.)

Another objection is, that the plaintiff below did not offer to restore the vessel. But this proceeds on a misapprehension of the nature of the remedy. In an action of redhibition, such an offer would be necessary. Here, the contract is to stand unrescinded, and the buyer retains the thing, the price only being lessened as much as is necessary to do justice.

It was also argued that this contract was not to be governed by the laws of Louisiana, but by the laws of New York, where the vendors resided. But the contract was made and performed in Louisiana, and must be governed by its laws. (Boyle v. Zacharie, 6 Peters, 635; Cox v. United States, 6 Peters, 172; Bell v. Bruin, 1 How., 169.)

The counsel for the plaintiff in error also urged, that if the law of Louisiana ought to govern the contract, that law was to be found, not in the civil code of that State, but in the general commercial law of the country. Without pausing upon the difficulties which otherwise might attend this proposition, we think it sufficient to say, that we find the subject of sales, with the obligations which attend them, regulated by the civil code of Louisiana, and we see no sound reason why sales of vessels are not within those laws.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirined.

Dred Scott v. Sandford.

LATHROP L. STURGIS, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. CHRISTIAN HONOLD. The decision in the preceding case again affirmed.

THIS, like the preceding case, of which it constituted a branch, was brought up, by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of the United States for the eastern district of Louisiana.

It was similar in all respects to the preceding case, except that Honold purchased five-sixteenths of the ship from Sturgis, and four-sixteenths from Bulkley. The two cases proceeded through the courts pari passu, and were argued together in this

court.

Mr. Justice CURTIS delivered the opinion of the court.

This case depends on the same facts and principles as the preceding case, and the judgment of the Circuit Court therein is affirmed.

DRED SCOTT, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. JOHN F. A. SANDFORD.

I.

1. Upon a writ of error to a Circuit Court of the United States, the transcript of the record of all the proceedings in the case is brought before this court, and is open to its inspection and revision.

2. When a plea to the jurisdiction, in abatement, is overruled by the court upon demurrer, and the defendant pleads in bar, and upon these pleas the final judgment of the court is in his favor-if the plaintiff brings a writ of error, the judgment of the court upon the plea in abatement is before this court, although it was in favor of the plaintiff and if the court erred in overruling it, the judgment must be reversed, and a mandate issued to the Circuit Court to dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction.

3. In the Circuit Courts of the United States, the record must show that the case is one in which, by the Constitution and laws of the United States, the court had jurisdiction-and if this does not appear, and the court gives judgment either for plaintiff or defendant, it is error, and the judgment must be reversed by this court and the parties cannot by consent waive the objection to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court.

4. A free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a "citizen" within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States.

5. When the Constitution was adopted, they were not regarded in any of the States as members of the community which constituted the State, and were not numbered among its "people or citizens." Consequently, the special rights and immunities guarantied to citizens do not apply to them. And not being "citizens" within the meaning of the Constitution, they are not entitled to sue in that character in a court of the United States, and the Circuit Court has not jurisdiction in such a suit.

6. The only two clauses in the Constitution which point to this race, treat them as persons whom it was morally lawful to deal in as articles of property and to hold as slaves.

7. Since the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, no State can by any subsequent law make a foreigner or any other description of persons citizens of