TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State v. Post

State v. Post, 21 N.J.L. 699 (1848)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of New Jersey · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 15, 1848
Citations
21 N.J.L. 699
Headnotes
Slavery existed in Hew Jersey prior to the adoption of the Constitution of 1844, and was not abolished by that Constitution, (a)
Summary
Error to the Supremo Court. To a writ of habeas corpus allowed at the bar of the Supreme Court, commanding Post, the defendant, to bring up the bodies of a colored man named William and of a colored woman named Flora, whom ho illegally detained. Post returned that he held them as Slaves by virtue of the laws of New Jersey, under a bill of sale. To this return there was a demurrer and joinder, the real question raised and argued being whether Slavery and all involuntary servitude was not abolished by Sect. 1, of Article 1, of the State Constitution of 1844. The Supreme Court (Speno. 368) held the return sufficient, and overruled the demurrer, (a) This judgment was removed to this court by writ of error.

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

Opinion of the Court

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

The cause was argued by W. Halsted, for plaintiff in error, no one appearing for defendant.

*700 The court affirmed the judgment below by the following vote:

For Affirmance — Green, (C. J.) Robertson,Speer, Porter, Schenck, Spencer, and Whitehead — 7.

For Reversal — The Chancellor — 1.

Cited in State v. Baird, 4 C. E. Green 488.

How later courts describe this case

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

1988: 119882026peak 1988 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Franklin v. NJ DEPT. OF HUMAN SERV.543 A.2d 56 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1988)

Most recent

  1. Franklin v. NJ DEPT. OF HUMAN SERV.543 A.2d 56 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1988)

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