Guardian of Sally v. Beaty

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas

Guardian of Sally v. Beaty

1 S.C.L. 260

DecidedMay 15, 1792

StatusPublished

This text of 1 S.C.L. 260 (Guardian of Sally v. Beaty) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Guardian of Sally v. Beaty, 1 S.C.L. 260 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1792).

Pincite

Opinion

Rutledge, Ch. J.

delivered the opinion of the court; and, in his charge to the jury, observed, that although the case was a new one, yet the court found no difficulty whatever in forming an opinion on it; for if the master got the labour of his wench, or what he agreed to receive for her monthly wages, (which was the same thing,) he could not be injured ; on the contrary, he was fully satisfied, and all that she earned over ought - to be at her own disposal; and if the wench chose to appropriate the savings of her extra labour to the purchase of this girl, in order afterwards to set her free, would a jury of the country say no? He trusted not. They were too humane and upright, he hoped, to do [263]*263such manifest violence to so singular and extraordinary an act of benevolence.

The jury, without retiring from their box, returned a verdict for the plaintiff’s ward, and she was set at liberty.

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

Rutledge, Ch. J.

delivered the opinion of the court; and, in his charge to the jury, observed, that although the case was a new one, yet the court found no difficulty whatever in forming an opinion on it; for if the master got the labour of his wench, or what he agreed to receive for her monthly wages, (which was the same thing,) he could not be injured ; on the contrary, he was fully satisfied, and all that she earned over ought - to be at her own disposal; and if the wench chose to appropriate the savings of her extra labour to the purchase of this girl, in order afterwards to set her free, would a jury of the country say no? He trusted not. They were too humane and upright, he hoped, to do [263]*263such manifest violence to so singular and extraordinary an act of benevolence.

The jury, without retiring from their box, returned a verdict for the plaintiff’s ward, and she was set at liberty.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 S.C.L. 260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guardian-of-sally-v-beaty-pactcompl-1792.