Hinds v. Brazealle
3 Miss. 837 (1838)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state will not recognize or enforce a legal act, such as a deed of emancipation, performed in another state by one of its own citizens if that act was done with the intent to evade the fundamental public policy and positive laws of the citizen's home state. An emancipation that is void under this principle leaves the individual as a slave, incapable of inheriting property.
Facts:
- Elisha Brazealle, a permanent resident of Mississippi, took an enslaved woman and her son, John Munroe Brazealle, to Ohio in 1826.
- Brazealle's stated purpose for the trip was to emancipate them with the intention of bringing them back to Mississippi.
- While in Ohio, Brazealle executed a formal deed of emancipation for the woman and her son.
- Immediately after executing the deed, Brazealle returned with them to his residence in Mississippi, where he lived until his death.
- After returning, Brazealle executed a will that acknowledged John Munroe as his son, purported to ratify the Ohio emancipation deed, and devised his property to him.
Procedural Posture:
- The heirs at law of Elisha Brazealle (complainants) filed a bill in a Mississippi chancery court (a court of first instance for equity).
- The executors of Brazealle's estate (respondents) filed a demurrer to the bill, arguing that even if the facts alleged were true, they did not constitute a valid legal claim.
- The chancellor (trial court judge) overruled the demurrer, allowing the case to proceed.
- The respondents (appellants) appealed the chancellor's decision to the High Court of Errors and Appeals of Mississippi (the state's highest court at the time).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a deed of emancipation, executed in a free state (Ohio) by a Mississippi resident for the purpose of freeing his slaves and immediately returning with them to Mississippi, have legal validity in Mississippi, thereby allowing the emancipated individual to inherit property under a will?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Chief Justice Sharkey
No. A deed of emancipation executed by a Mississippi citizen in another state to evade Mississippi's laws and public policy is void in Mississippi. The principle of national comity, which generally requires states to respect the laws of other states, does not compel a state to enforce a contract or legal act that violates its own fundamental public policy or was created by one of its citizens in fraud of its laws. Mississippi's public policy, expressed through its legislation, strongly disfavored emancipation and the presence of free Black people. The state had a specific, restrictive statutory process for emancipation, requiring legislative approval, which Brazealle's actions bypassed. The court found that Brazealle's journey to Ohio, execution of the deed, and immediate return to Mississippi demonstrated a 'fixed design to evade the rigor of the laws of this state.' Because the emancipation was a legal nullity in Mississippi, John Munroe Brazealle remained a slave and was therefore legally incapable of taking property by devise.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the 'evasion principle' within the doctrine of comity, establishing that a state's strong public policy can override the legal acts of its citizens performed in other states. It affirms that the legal status of a person (slave or free) is determined by the law of their domicile, particularly when an attempt is made to subvert that law. This ruling reinforced the legal framework of slavery by preventing slaveholders from using the laws of free states to circumvent the anti-emancipation policies of slave states, thereby strengthening the institution within Mississippi's borders.
Unlock the full brief for Hinds v. Brazealle