Steele v. Shirley

Citations

• 21 Miss. 196

Syllabus

<p>A writ of error lies from the decision of a circuit judge, sitting on the trial of a writ of habeas corpus for slaves alleged to have been taken “ out of the possession of the master or owner by force, stratagem or fraud ; ” but an appeal does not lie.</p> <p>The writ of habeas corpus for slaves, at the instance of the owner, is allowed by the statute, when the slaves are “ taken out of the possession of the master or owner by force, stratagem or fraud, and unlawfully detained; ” if, therefore, it appear on the trial of such a writ, that the slaves were not so taken by either force, stratagem or fraud, the judge will have no jurisdiction of the case, and the petition must be dismissed.</p> <p>S. sued out a writ of habeas corpus against C. S., alleging that the latter had taken certain slaves of the former out of his possession, he being the owner by force; on the trial of the writ it appeared that C. S., as sheriff, had taken the slaves under the fiat of the chancellor and process from the chancery court in the suit of M. against S., and held them in custody by virtue thereof, until the jail fees amounted to $ 140 ; when S. presented him an order from the chancellor for their release, C. S. refused to deliver them until the fees ,due were paid him; upon which S. sued out the writ of habeas corpus: Held, that the facts did not justify the issuance of the writ; the sheriff took the slaves in obedience to the order of a court of competent jurisdiction, and did not detain them unlawfully when he held them to enforce the payment of fees allowed him by law.</p> <p>It seems that a sheriff has by law a lien upon slaves committed to his jail, for their jail fees, and has a right to retain the slaves for their payment; but if there are several slaves so committed, upon the order for their release, he should only retain a sufficient number, of value to pay the fees.</p>