The Dred Scott Decision 1857

The Dred Scott Decision 1857

The Dred Scott Decision 1857
The Dred Scott Decision 1857 – Dred Scott, c. 1857.

Dred Scott (c. 1800–1858), Harriet Robinson (c. 1815–1876), Irene Emerson (1815–1903), Roger Taney (1777–1864)

The question of whether slavery would be tolerated in new territory has posed a danger to the Union since the 1780s. Many sacrifices have been made throughout the years to avoid disunity. But, what does the Constitution say about this? In the case of DRED SCOTT VS. SANDFORD, this topic was presented before the Supreme Court in 1857. DRED SCOTT was a slave of John Emerson, an army surgeon. In the 1830s, Scott was transferred from Missouri to positions in Illinois and what is now Minnesota for a period of time before returning to Missouri. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 designated the territory around MINNESOTA to be a free state.

Read more

The Measure of Contract Damages 1854

The Measure of Contract Damages 1854

The Measure of Contract Damages 1854
The Measure of Contract Damages 1854 – A dispute over the broken crankshaft of a steam engine resulted in the rule of foreseeability that is now used to determine the measure of damages from a breach of contract.

Hadley v. Baxendale case

A brief summary of the facts. Plaintiffs owned and ran a mill, and when a component of their steam engine failed, they had to shut it down. Plaintiffs then hired Defendants, who were common carriers, to transport the component to W. Joyce & Co. for a replacement part to be made. Plaintiffs sought to collect damages when delivery was delayed owing to Defendants’ negligence, leading Plaintiffs’ mill to stay closed for longer than intended.

A summary of the Rule of Law. Damages flowing naturally from the breach or those in the reasonable comprehension of the parties at the time of contracting are those to which a nonbreaching party is entitled.

Read more

The Field Code 1848 – Code of Civil Procedure

The Field Code 1848 – Code of Civil Procedure

The Field Code 1848 - Code of Civil Procedure
The Field Code 1848 – Code of Civil Procedure

David Dudley Field (1805–1894)

The first code of civil procedure, presented by David Dudley Field in 1848 for the state of New York and passed by the state legislature, set simpler standards for pleading an action before a court.

The Field Code served as a model for other states when it came to codifying and modifying civil procedure standards in their courts. There were no universal rules for starting an activity prior to the code. Each common-law and equity case had its own set of strict procedural rules, and the language used in such petitions was highly structured and verbose. A plaintiff’s claim was rarely presented in basic, uncomplicated words.

Read more

The M’Naghten Rule 1843 – Criminal Law

The M’Naghten Rule 1843 – Criminal Law

The M’Naghten Rule 1843 – Criminal Law
The M’Naghten Rule 1843 – Criminal Law – William Hogarth’s 1735 A Rake’s Progress depicts life inside the Bethlem Royal Hospital (“Bedlam”) in London. Daniel M’Naghten was committed to Bedlam for twenty-one years after being found not guilty of murder by reason of insanity.

Daniel M’Naghten (1813–1865), Edward Drummond (1792–1843), Nicholas Conyngham Tindal (1776–1846), Queen Victoria (1819–1901)

A test used to assess whether a person accused of committing a crime was sane at the time of the crime and hence criminally accountable.

The M’Naghten rule is used to determine if someone is insane enough to commit a crime. A criminal defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity under the M’Naghten rule if, at the time of the alleged criminal act, she was so deranged that she did not know the nature or quality of her actions, or if she did know the nature and quality of her actions, she was so deranged that she did not know what she was doing was wrong.

Read more

Recognition of Labour Unions 1842

Recognition of Labour Unions 1842

Recognition of Labour Unions 1842
Recognition of Labour Unions 1842 – Chief Justice Shaw rebuffed the standing view of labor organizations as criminal conspiracies.

Commonwealth v. Hunt, Lemuel Shaw (1781–1861)

Labour Organizations

Prior to and after the Revolution, the class of skilled laborers known as artisans, craftsmen, and mechanics existed in America. These employees worked inside a “guild system,” which was a framework that mirrored their demands and social order.

Unions

Labour unions encountered several obstacles in their quest for recognition to organize employees, and it wasn’t until the Massachusetts Supreme Court decided in Commonwealth v. Hunt (1842) that they gained traction in the United States. It was not unlawful to organize a trade union, nor was it criminal to insist that businesses recruit exclusively union members, according to Commonwealth v. Hunt.

Read more

The Amistad 1839 – Origins of Rebellion

The Amistad 1839 – Origins of Rebellion

The Amistad 1839 – Origins of Rebellion
The Amistad 1839 – Origins of Rebellion – Cinqué, chief of the Amistad captives.

The Amistad Mutiny occurred on the slave ship Amistad on the coast of Cuba on July 2, 1839, and had significant political and legal ramifications for the American abolition movement. The mutineers were apprehended and convicted in the United States, and the country’s antislavery forces won an unexpected win in 1841 when the United States Supreme Court liberated the rebels. The American Missionary Association grew out of a group created to safeguard slaves (incorporated 1846).

The Spanish schooner Amistad was travelling from Havana to Puerto Prncipe, Cuba, on July 2, 1839, when the ship’s reluctant passengers, 53 African slaves newly kidnapped, revolted. They killed the captain and the cook but spared the life of a Spanish navigator so that he could sail them back to Sierra Leone, headed by Joseph Cinqué. Instead, the navigator was able to steer the Amistad northward. The ship was taken by the US Navy off the coast of Long Island, New York, and hauled to New London, Connecticut, two months later. The mutineers were imprisoned in a jail at New Haven, Connecticut, which allowed slavery.

Read more

Administering Native Peoples 1824

Administering Native Peoples 1824

Administering Native Peoples 1824 USA
Administering Native Peoples 1824 USA – This 1939 mural, Indian & Soldier by Maynard Dixon, adorns a wall of the Bureau of Indian Affairs at the Department of the Interior in Washington, D.C.

John Marshall (1755–1835), James Monroe (1758–1831)

In Johnson v. M’Intosh case decision, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that Chief Justice John Marshall can exercise sovereignty over new lands whenever they are found. You can read the details o this case below.

The creation of the Office of Indian Affairs inside the War Department establishes the bureaucracy that would oversee the nation’s “manifest destiny” goals—the belief that the nascent nation has the right to expand to the Pacific. As the US military defeats American Indian tribes, the government will establish treaties with them, and the tribes will be sent to reserves.

“Under the regulations set by the department, the management of the fund for Indian civilisation is likewise entrusted to your responsibility.” You are also in charge of investigating claims resulting from legislation governing relations with Indian tribes, and will submit them to this Department after analyzing and briefing them, endorsing a proposal for their permission or disallowance.”

Read more