Daniel v. Kincheloe

6 F. Cas. 1150, 2 D.C. 295, 2 Cranch 295

This text of 6 F. Cas. 1150 (Daniel v. Kincheloe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Daniel v. Kincheloe, 6 F. Cas. 1150, 2 D.C. 295, 2 Cranch 295 (circtddc 1822).

Opinion

Upon the trial,

the Court

(nem. con.) instructed the jury that from the fact that young Kincheloe had authority to hire out the slave and receive his wages, they could not infer that he had authority to sell the slave ; and further instructed the jury, (Mor-sell, J., contra,) that if they should be satisfied by the evidence, [296]*296that the importation of the petitioner into the eonnty of Washington was with the intent that he should be hired to remain a limited time only, and not to reside permanently, it was not such an importation as is within the first section of the Maryland Act of 1796, c. 67.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
6 F. Cas. 1150, 2 D.C. 295, 2 Cranch 295, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniel-v-kincheloe-circtddc-1822.