John Rowan and John Harris, Copartners In Trade Under the Name and Style of Rowan and Harris, Plaintiffs In Error v. Hiram Runnels, Defendant In Error Same v. Same

• Decision Date: 01 January 1847
• Citation: 46 U.S. 134,5 How. 134,12 L.Ed. 85
• Parties: JOHN A. ROWAN AND JOHN L. HARRIS, COPARTNERS IN TRADE UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF ROWAN AND HARRIS, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. HIRAM G. RUNNELS, DEFENDANT IN ERROR. SAME v. SAME
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

46 U.S. 134 5 How. 134 12 L.Ed. 85 JOHN A. ROWAN AND JOHN L. HARRIS, COPARTNERS IN TRADE UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF ROWAN AND HARRIS, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. HIRAM G. RUNNELS, DEFENDANT IN ERROR. SAME v. SAME. January Term, 1847

THESE cases were brought up, by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Mississippi. Rowan and Harris were citizens of Virginia, and Runnels was a citizen of Mississippi.

Both cases depended upon the same principle, and differed only in this, that, in one, Runnels executed to Rowan & Harris his own note, and, in the other, indorsed over to them a promissory note executed by George W. Adams. Both notes were due on the 1st of March, 1840, one being for $2,950.70, and the other for $8,671.33. At maturity the notes were protested for non-payment, and suits brought upon them.

At the trial, the defendant offered in evidence a transcript of the record of a suit pending in the Supreme Court of Chancery of the

Page 135

State of Mississippi, wherein Rowan & Harris were complainants, and George W. Adams and others, defendants, one object of which was to show that the consideration for the notes was a sale of slaves by Rowan & Harris to Runnels. Whereupon the defendant moved the court to instruct the jury, that if they believed, from the evidence, that the original consideration of the note sued on was the sale by plaintiffs to defendant of slaves introduced into the State of Mississippi for sale and as merchandise by plaintiffs, since the 1st day of May, 1833, that then said note was void, and they should find for the defendant. Which instruction the court gave to the jury as moved for by the defendant. To the giving of which instruction the plaintiffs excepted, and upon this exception the case came up to this court.

Mr. Nelson, for the plaintiffs in error, contended that the case was entirely covered by the decision of this court in 15 Pet., 449.

Mr. Bibb, for appellees.

These cases grew out of that provision of the constitution of the State of Mississippi which is in these words:—'The introduction of slaves into this State as merchandise, or for sale, shall be prohibited from and after the first day of May, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-three.

The decision of this court, at the January term, 1841, upon the construction of that clause of the constitution of the State of Mississippi, in the case of Groves v. Slaughter, 15 Pet., 449, was, that the constitution of the State of Mississippi referred the subject of the prohibition to the legislature as a duty to be performed by that body, and that there was no prohibition until the legislature should act.

That decision is a precedent, not binding upon the appellees in these two cases, because they were not parties to that case, neither are they privies. They have a right to avail themselves of the benefit of all the additional lights and after circumstances.

The principle is well settled and firmly established by the decisions of this court, again and again repeated and exemplified, that the construction which the courts of the several States have given to their own constitutions and statutes, respectively, ought to control the decisions of this court upon questions of right growing out of State constitutions and State statutes, unless they come in conflict with the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. The decision in the case of Groves v. Slaughter, 15 Pet., 449, alludes to this principle; but, in the opinion of the court, it is said:—'The case chiefly relied upon is that of Glidewell and others v. Hite and Fitzpatrick, a newspaper report of which has been furnished to the court. It was a bill in equity filed some time in the year 1839, since the commencement of the suit now before

Page 136

this court, and the decree of the chancellor affirmed in the Court of Appeals by the divided court, since the judgment was obtained in this cause. But if we look into that case, and the points there discussed, and the diversity of opinion entertained by the judges, we cannot consider it as...