
    No. 1299.
    Harvey Tate, Administrator, v. H. A. K. Fletcher et als.
    The doctrine in Wainwrighfc, Administrator, v. Bridges, (ante page 234) reaffirmed.
    Where the consideration of the sale was a slave, who afterwards became free by the act of the sovereign power, the Courts are without authority to enforce payment of the price. They are alike without authority to give judgment for the hire of the person (slave) before emancipation.
    A PFEAL from the District Court, Parish of East Feliciana, Ellis, J.‘
    
      Wilson <& Williams, for plaintiff.
    
      A. Addison, for defendants.
    
      Brief for plaintiff and appellant.
    
    * ":f * I apprehend, may it please the Court, that the sole question presented by the pleading and the evidence adduced in this cause is, shall the plaintiff be permitted to •recover the purchase price of the “slave Dick,” as evidenced • by the notes sued on and made by the defendants, October, 1860 ?
    This suit, upon these notes, was filed with the clerk of the Sixth District Court, St. Helena, on the 2áth of December, A. D., 1862, but was not tried until May, 1866. It will not be denied or doubted, that at the time of the purchase of the “slave Dick,” October, 1860, and the execution of the notes (the price or consideration) and of their respective maturities and the filing of this action, the law, as it then was, that the defendants would be compelled by the Courts to pay and satisfy these notes. It was the duty of the defendants to pay them. Infidelity to their obligations is the cause of the present suit. If the defendant has lost the slave through the action of the State and General Governments, emancipating slaves, the loss must be borne by herself. Her title was not contingent, suspensive or conditional, but was absolute at the moment of the adjudication. It is unnecessary to say more.
    
      Brief for defendants and appellees.
    
    -;i * * We, therefore, proceed to consider the second ground of defence, and submit the following-propositions, to be sustained by argument and authorities to be cited upon the trial, viz:
    1st. That by the act of the sovereign authority, which is equally binding upon the plaintiff and defendant, and for which the said plaintiff is equally responsible with the defendant, the consideration for which the note sued on was given has been destroyed, and that the plaintiff is estopped and restrained from obtaining, and the Court from granting a judicial remedy to enforce the performance of a contract based upon African slavery.
    2d. That said contract, having been entered into on the part of both plaintiff and defendant, with reference to and under guarantees and protection contained in the laws and Constitutions of the Federal and Stato Governments upon the subject of African slavery, and those guarantees and protection which entered into, the consideration for which the note sued on was given, having been revoked, annulled and abolished by the sovereign authority of the Federal and State Governments, the plaintiff is estopped and restrained from obtaining, and the Court from granting a judicial remedy to enforce the performance of the said contract.
    3d. That by the acts of the sovereign authority, as aforesaid, the judicial authority can no longer be envoked to enforce the rights acquired by this defendant under the contract sued upon, and that the said plaintiff is estopped and restrained by equity and good conscience from obtaining, and the Court from granting a judicial remedy to enforce the performance of the said contract in favor of the other contracting party only.
    4th. That by the acts of 'the sovereign authority, as aforesaid, African slavery has ceased to be the subject of conventional obligations, and of judicial action, and it is contrary to equity, to good conscience, to good morals and public policy, to enforce the jierformance of obligations which have no longer the sanction of the laws of the land, and under which the reciprocal rights and responsibilities of parties, created by said contracts, can no longer be enforced by judicial authority.
   Tabiaeebbo, J.

This suit is brought to recover the amount of two promissory notes of a series of three, executed for the payment of the price of a slave purchased by the defendant at a probate sale. The defence is failure of consideration from the emancipation of slaves by the sovereign power.

The judgment rendered by the Court below, released the defendants from the obligation of paying the notes sued upon, but allowed the plaintiff six hundred dollars for hire of the slave during the time he had him in possession.

The plaintiff appealed.

For the reasons assigned in the late case of Wainwright, Administrator, v. Bridges, it is ordered that the judgment of the District Court, releasing the defendants from all obligation to pay the notes sued upon be affirmed, and that that part of the judgment allowing hire for the slave be annulled, avoided and reversed, the plaintiff and appellee paying costs in both courts.

Justices Labauve and Ilsbey dissenting.

For the reasons given in our dissenting opinion, in the case of Wainwright v. Bridges, No. 1305, we dissent in this case.

Zbnon Labauve, Associate Justice.

John H. Ilsbey, Associate Justice.  