BOYCE
v.
TABB
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A creditor sought to enforce a promissory note executed when slavery was legal in Louisiana, but the Louisiana Supreme Court refused to enforce it on grounds of public policy following slavery's abolition. The U.S. Supreme Court held that contracts relating to slaves that were valid when made were not impaired by the Thirteenth Amendment or subsequent state law, and that Louisiana courts were not bound by the Thirteenth Amendment to refuse enforcement of such contracts based on public policy grounds alone. The Court affirmed that federal courts need not follow state court decisions on general questions of law unless they involve local statutes, land titles, or settled property principles.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice DAVIS delivered the Opinion of the court. ' If, when the note in question was executed, slavery existed in Louisiana under the protection of law, and contracts relating to it were enforceable in the courts, which is conceded to be'the case, the defendant cannot be released from his obligation to pay it by anything which the State has done subsequently. This subject received the careful attention of this court in White v. Hart, * and we are satisfied of the soundness of the views there presented. The case of Osborne v. Nicholson† is also decisive of the last point in the charge. In that ca.se it was held that contracts relating to slaves, valid-when made, were not impaired by the thirteenth amendment to the Constitution, and it would serve no useful purpose to restate the argument by w7hich that decision was supported. It is sufficient to say that we have seen no reason to question the correctness of the interpretation given to that amendment in its application to that case. It is urged on the part of the plaintiff in error, as the highest court in Louisiana has, on grounds of.public policy, refused to enforce contracts like this since the abolition of slavery, that the thirty-fourth section of the Judiciary Act •of 1789 obliges this court to follow that rule of decision. This is an erroneous view of the obligation imposed by that section on this court, as our decisions abundantly show.‡ The provisions of that section do not apply, nor was it intended they should apply, to questions of a general nature not based on a locat statute or usage, nor on any rule of law affecting titles to land, nor on any principle which had become a settled rule of property. The decisions of the State courts, on all questions not thus affected, are not conclusive authority, although they are entitled to, and will receive from us, attention and respect. Judgment aeeírmed. * 13 Wallace, 647. † Ib. 655. ‡ Swift v. Tyson, 16 Peters, 1; Watson v. Tarpley, 18 Howard, 520; Delmas v. Insurance Company, 14 Wallace, 665.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (U.S. 1938)…pe of the doctrine, see Sharp & Brennan, The Application of the Doctrine of Swift v. Tyson since 1900 (1929) 4 Ind. L. J. 367. Black & White Taxicab Co. v. Brown & Yellow Taxicab Co., 276 U. S. 518; Rowan v. Runnels, 5 How. 134, 139; Boyce v. Tabb, 18 Wall. 546, 548; Johnson v. Chas. D. Norton Co., 159 Fed. 361 (C. C. A. 6); Keene Five Cent Sav. Bank v. Reid, 123 Fed. 221 (C. C. A. 8). Railroad Co. v. Lockwood, 17 Wall. 357, 367—68; Liverpool & G. W. Steam Co. v. Phenix Ins. Co., 129 U. S. 397, 443; Eels…
-
Black & White Taxicab & Transfer Co. v. Brown & Yellow Taxicab & Transfer Co., 276 U.S. 518 (U.S. 1928)…le and rightly held the contract valid. The facts shown warrant the injunction granted. Decree affirmed. * And see Watson v. Tarpley, 18 How., 517; Mercer County v. Hackett, 1 Wall. 83, 95; Supervisors v. Schenck, 5 Wall. 772, 784; Boyce v. Tabb, 18 Wall. 546, 548; Railroad Co. v. Jones, 95 U. S. 439; Hough v. Railway Co., 100 U. S. 213, 226; Oates v. National Bank, 100 U. S. 239, 246; Railroad Co. v. National Bank, 102 U. S. 14, 29; Burgess v. Seligman, 107 U. S. 20, 32, et seq.; Myrick v. Michigan Cent…
-
Salem Tr. Co. v. Mfrs'. Fin. Co., 264 U.S. 182 (U.S. 1924)…t based on any legislation of the State or local law or usage, and the [*192] lower court rightly decided that it was not bound by the rule applied in the decisions of the highest court of Massachusetts. Swift v. Tyson, 16 Pet. 1, 18; Boyce v. Tabb, 18 Wall. 546; Railroad Company v. National Bank, 102 U. S. 14, 28; Presidio County v. Noel-Young Bond Co., 212 U. S. 58, 73; Methven v. Staten Island Light, Heat & Power Co., 66 Fed. 113; In re Leterman, Becher & Co., 260 Fed. 543, 547. The precise question now…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Swift v. Tyson, 16 Pet. 1 (U.S. 1842)