Worthington v. Mason
| Decision Date | 01 October 1879 |
| Citation | 25 L.Ed. 848,101 U.S. 149 |
| Parties | WORTHINGTON v. MASON |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
This was an action brought by Martha W. Mason against Edward T. Worthington and Isaac M. Worthington, administrators of Elisha Worthington, deceased, to recover for work and labor done and services rendered to the intestate. The jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $12,000, for which there was judgment, and the administrators sued out this writ of error.
The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. Augustus H. Garland for the plaintiffs in error.
Mr Albert Pike, Mr. Albert N. Sutton, and Mr. Luther H. Pike for the defendant in error.
The errors assigned in this case relate solely to prayers for instructions refused by the court and to exceptions to its charge. The bill of exceptions shows a paper signed by the defendants' counsel, in which the court is asked to affirm a series 'of propositions of law as governing the case,' seven in number. They were presented as a whole, refused as a whole, and excepted to in the same manner. If any one of them was rightfully rejected no error was committed, because it was not the duty of the court to do any thing more than pass upon the prayer as an entirety. Beaver v. Taylor et al., 93 U. S. 46; Transportation Line v. Hope, 95 id. 297. We shall presently see why there is no error in the rejection of this prayer.
The charge of the court in full is embodied in the record, and to this the defendant took two exceptions. They are thus stated:——
'And the defendant excepted at the time said charge was given by the court to the following parts thereof, to wit, to so much of said charge as states the law to be that if Colonel Worthington, the owner of the plaintiff as a slave, took the plaintiff to Oberlin, in the State of Ohio, and there placed her in school to be educated, the Constitution and laws of Ohio immediately dissolved the relation of master and slave previously existing between Colonel Worthington and the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff thereby became a free woman, and could never thereafter lawfully be claimed or held by Colonel Worthington as his slave in virtue of his previous ownership of her, and that the subsequent return of the plaintiff from the State of Ohio to the residence of the intestate in this State did not affect her liberty or rights as a free woman which she had acquired by the voluntary action of the intestate and by the operation of the Constitution and laws of the State of Ohio.
'And defendants, also, at the time excepted to the following clause of said instructions, to wit, 'And in considering the question of what would be reasonable and just compensation to the plaintiff for her services, you are at liberty to take into consideration any evidence tending to establish the special agreement heretofore referred to, and if you find such special agreement a contract was made, that is, that the intestate, for the purpose of inducing the plaintiff to remain with him and render the services alleged to have been rendered, agreed to convey or devise to the plaintiff in payment for such services specified portions or parcels of his estate, and that the plaintiff did remain with the intestate and perform the required services until the death of the intestate, then, as throwing light on the transactions between the parties, and as tending to show the value the parties themselves placed upon the services of the plaintiff, you are at liberty to take into consideration the value as disclosed by the evidence of such specific parcels of real estate which you may find the intestate agreed to convey or devise to plaintiff for such services, and considering the special contract (if you find it proven) for this purpose only, it rests with you under your oaths and judgments, considering all the facts and circumstances in the case disclosed by the evidence, to say what would be a fair, reasonable, and just compensation to the plaintiff for her services, but in no event can you allow the plaintiff a greater sum than the value of the specific property which plaintiff claims was to be conveyed or devised to her...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wallace v. Skinner
...Tootle, 50 Mo.App. 322; Fischer v. Burshall, 27 Neb. 245; Morehouse v. Yager, 41 N. Y. Super., 135; Curry v. York, 3 Tex. 357; Worthington v. Mason, 101 U.S. 149; McLemore Nuckolls, 37 Ala. 662; Shepard v. Jones, 71 Cal. 223; Livingston v. Cooper, 22 Fla. 292; Tel. Co. v. Hill, 86 Ga. 500; ......
-
Union Ins Co Philadelphia v. Smith
...settled that such a general exception is bad, provided any one of the series is objectionable. Beaver v. Taylor, 93 U. S. 46; Worthington v. Mason, 101 U. S. 149; United States v. Hough, 103 U. S. 71. The first one of this series of propositions was clearly objectionable, namely, that, unde......
-
Phoenix Mut Life Ins Co v. Raddin
...prayers for instruction, therefore, may have been hypothetical, and wholly unwarranted by any testimony before the jury.' Worthington v. Mason, 101 U. S. 149, 151. It follows that the only question upon the instructions of the court to the jury which is open to the defendant on this bill of......
-
Bogk v. Gassert
...v. Jones, 1 Black, 209, 220; Rogers v. Marsnal, 1 Wall. 644; Harvey v. Tyler, 2 Wall. 328; Beaver v. Taylor, 93 U. S. 46; Worthington v. Mason, 101 U. S. 149; Moulor v. Insurance Co., 111 U. S. 335, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 466. This is not only the rule in this court, but also in the courts of Mont......