TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Queen v. Neale

Queen v. Neale, 3 H. & J. 158 (1810)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals of Maryland · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 15, 1810
Judges
Buchanan, Chase, Earle, Nicholson
Citations
3 H. & J. 158
Cited by 4
Headnotes
A petition for freedom is comprehended within the general terms o'f suits of actions .in the second section of the act of 3804, clI* 55, relative «o their removal from one coun ?y to another, ant| county court, in which the suit $8 instituted, are foouml to transmit the proceedings to the judges ofatiy county court within the district, upon the affidavit ©f either of the parties competent to make an affidavit, or upon such wilier proper ami Competent dvi* <ience as may be ©ffbred in support vf the suggestion, that an impartial trial cinnoi: be M A negro petitioning ibr bis iyeedom is not competent to make such an affidavit, his slavery ot fteedom being then _ tub jydice, smd if a slave‘he is excluded by the act of 1717, oft 13,
Summary
Appeal frojn Charles County Court. This was a petition for freedom; and under the act of 1804, ch. 55, s. 2, the petitioner, (now appellant,) exhibited her affidavit, stating that she believed she could not have a fair and impartial trial in that court, and by her counsel moved the court co direct that the pecord and proceedings should be removed as directed by the above mentioned act; but the court, [Clarke, A. J.] overruled the motion. The petitioner excepted. The case was afterwards tried, and the verdict and judgment being for the defendant, the petitioner appealed to this court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Nicholson

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Nicholson, J,

delivered the opinion of the court. A petition for freedom is comprehended within the general terms of suits or actions in the second section of the act of 1804, ch. 55, and the county court, in which the suit is instituted, are bound to transmit the proceedings to the judges of any county court within the district, upon the affidavit of either of the parties competent to jnake an affidavit, or upon such other proper and competent evidence as may be offered in support of the suggestion that an impartial trial cannot be had in the county in which the petition for freedom is depending.

A negro, petitioning for his freedom, is not competent to make such an affidavit — his slavery or freedom being then sub judicc, and if a slave, he is excluded by the act of 1717, ch. 18.

judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 4 cases

View all citing references →
1846–1847: 11876–1877: 21930–1931: 118462026peak 1876 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Hall v. United States92 U.S. 27 (1876)
  2. Mayor of Baltimore v. Libowitz149 A. 449 (Md. 1930)
  3. Peters v. Van Lear4 Gill 249 (1846)
  4. Hall v. United States11 Ct. Cl. 197 (1876)

Most recent

  1. Mayor of Baltimore v. Libowitz149 A. 449 (Md. 1930)
  2. Hall v. United States11 Ct. Cl. 197 (1876)
  3. Hall v. United States92 U.S. 27 (1876)
  4. Peters v. Van Lear4 Gill 249 (1846)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list