Hinds v. Brazealle

High Court of Errors and Appeals of Mississippi · 1838 · Property

PropertyConflict of LawsEmancipationWills and Devisecomityconflict of lawspublic policy exceptionevasion of state law

Facts

Elisha Brazealle, a permanent resident of Mississippi, went to Ohio in 1826 with a slave woman and her son, John Munroe Brazealle, for the purpose of emancipating them and then returning with them to Mississippi. In Ohio he executed a deed of emancipation, returned with them to Jefferson County, and later made a will reciting and ratifying that deed while devising his property to John Munroe and acknowledging him as his son. After Brazealle's death, the executors proved the will and held the estate and its profits. The heirs at law sued, alleging that the Ohio deed was void under Mississippi law and policy, so John Munroe was still a slave and could not take the devise.

Issue

Must Mississippi recognize an Ohio deed of emancipation executed by a Mississippi citizen who took slaves to Ohio for the purpose of freeing them and immediately returned with them to Mississippi? If not, can John Munroe, treated as still a slave under Mississippi law, take property under Brazealle's will or through a trust?

Rule

Although contracts and similar acts are generally construed under the law of the place where made as a matter of comity, a state need not recognize or enforce an out-of-state act that would violate its positive law, contravene its fundamental policy, injure the state or its citizens, present a pernicious example, or was undertaken to evade the state's own laws. Under Mississippi law, emancipation is ineffective unless accomplished in the statutorily prescribed manner and ratified by special act of the legislature; a slave cannot take property as devisee or have it held in trust for him.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Caleb Morton, a permanent resident of Mississippi, traveled to Cincinnati, Ohio with a person he held as a slave. While there, he signed a document purporting to free her, then brought her back to Natchez and resumed living there with her in his household.

If Caleb dies and his heirs challenge the effect of the Ohio document in Mississippi, which result is most consistent with the controlling rule?

Explanation. The majority held that comity generally looks to the law of the place of the act, but that rule yields when recognition would contravene the forum state's positive law or fundamental policy. Mississippi therefore need not give effect to an out-of-state emancipation by its own citizen when doing so would defeat Mississippi's statutory scheme and settled policy.