Case 1: State v. Mann
Arguing on the Side of North Carolina (State)
Throughout history, property law has been in effect in many different countries. The United States of America is no different. In the case of North Carolina vs Mann, it is a case based primarily around property. As slaves have been considered property, why would property law not affect the ownership of slaves?
In this case, Mann had hired the slave, Lydia, but she was not owned by him. She was his temporary property; therefore, she was not his to injure or damage.
Although Mann had been renting Lydia, that does not mean that she is his property. As there aren't any rental property laws as of right now in the year 1829, we can only use the word "rent" as a guide to how he should have behaved.
When renting something, you pay the owner the required payment so you can use the property. So, "renting" means you allow the possession of property in exchange for payment. While renting, damages done to the property is not permitted.
John Mann broke this agreement. He damaged property that is not completely owned by him. So, he should face the repercussion of his mistake.
Historically, property law has been in place since the founding fathers founded the United States. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison even wrote about how common law affects property claims. Laws such as these have been established since to protect order. Without them, people would be taking and abducting others' possessions. Or worse, like John Mann destroy others property.
Mann could also have presented a bailment. It would be no different as if he were renting but it's still important to list the background. A bailment is described as a temporary transfer of possession. An example of this is when you check out a library book and the library loans it to you for a specific amount of time before you have to return it. Mann may've been involved in a bailment, but in the end, he would have to return his temporary property back to the original owner.
Even so, US Supreme Court Justice, James Wilson argued in 1790 that "Every crime includes an injury: every injury includes a violation of a right." This statement could be argued against Mann under the basis of property law. If one were to say that John Mann's actions were a crime (which they were), his actions would need to include an injury (which they do). John Mann injured his temporary property; therefore, he committed a crime against property law. Furthermore, Justice James Wilson argued this on the philosophical grounds of American Property law, so this statement does not exclude Lydia.
Within Americas past, property law and the rights involved had been argued. Though never before in the US court system has there been a landmark case based around slave law such as this one arguing on behalf of the slaves' rights. John Mann had broken multiple laws, one of those being property laws. So, he should pay his fine without argument.
Sources:
The Law of Premises Liability in America: Its Past, Present, and Some Considerations for Its Future
No comments:
Post a Comment