Groves v. Slaughter - 40 U.S. 449 (1841)

Rule:

The Mississippi Act of 1837 purports to carry into effect the injunctions in the constitution. It adopts the words of the constitution, and declares that, thereafter, the business of introducing or importing slaves into this state, as merchandise, or for sale, be, and the same is hereby, prohibited. This law does not assume that such prohibition was in force by virtue of the constitutional provision.

Facts:

Plaintiff sellers filed an action on a promissory note given in the state of Mississippi, for the purchase of slaves in that state. The slaves had been imported in 1835-1836, as merchandise, or for sale, into Mississippi, by a non-resident of that state. The defendant buyer contended that the notes were void because the contracts on which they were founded were in direct violation of the constitution of the state of Mississippi, which expressly prohibited the introduction of slaves as merchandise or for sale after May 1, 1833. The circuit court held that the plaintiff sellers could recover the value of the promissory notes plus interest and costs. The defendant buyer filed a writ of error. 

Issue:

Did the prohibition of the constitution invalidate the contracts made for the purchase of slaves?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The Court affirmed the judgment in favor of the sellers. To declare all contracts made for the purchase of slaves from May 1, 1833 until the passage of the law, in 1837, illegal and void, when there was such an unsettled state of opinion and course of policy pursued by the legislature, would be a severe and rigid construction of the constitution. The act of 1837 purported to carry into effect the injunctions in the constitution. It adopted the words of the constitution, and declared that, "hereafter, the business of introducing or importing slaves into this state, as merchandise, or for sale, be, and the same is hereby, prohibited." There was a compliance with the injunction in the constitution, by a direct prohibition. The law did not assume that such prohibition was in force by virtue of the constitutional provision.