Haynes v. Forno

Citations

• 8 La. Ann. 35

Syllabus

<p>Milltie, whose domicil was in Vicksburg, gave the plaintiff, his slave, in April, 1843, the following permit: “ My negro woman Sarah Haynes, about thirty years old, has permission to pass unmolested to Cincinnati and the State of Ohio generally, or any other free State she may choose.” By the Cow't. Her passage was provided for by her master, and she was sent to Cincinnati for the purpose of being made free. It does not appear that she remained longer than several days in Cincinnati, and she came to New Orleans in the same spring. The testimony shows that she has remained here since, with this exception, that in 1S44, or 1845, she went to Vicksburg. We infer that she remained there hut a short time. As the plaintiff has violated the law by coming into and remaining in this State in direct disobedience of its provisions, she cannot be considered as having acquired any rights, dependent on domicil or residence here, and her status must be determined by the laws of the domicil of her master. We cannot distinguish this case from that of /finds v. Bntaealle, 2 Howard’s (Mississippi) Rep. 841; Mary v. Broion., 5 A. 2T1. On the principles recognized by this Court in TJzay. jp-ivisscmt, T Annual, 83, the plaintiff would not be considered as having acquired her freedom by her presence in Cincinnati.</p>