Ham v. M'Claws

1 S.C.L. 93
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas·Decided October 30, 1789·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The Court.

It is clear, that statutes passed against the plain and obvious principles of common right, and common reason, are absolutely null and void, as far as they are calculated to operate against those principles. In the present instance, we have an act before us, which, were the strict letter of it applied to the case of the present claimants, would be evidently against common reason. But we would not do the legislature who passed this act, so much injustice, as to sit here and say that it was their intention to make a forfeiture of property brought in her^ as this was. We are, therefore, bound to give such a construction to this enacting clause of the act of 1788, as will-be consistent with justice, and the dictates of natural reasopj.. though contrary to the strict letter of the. law ; and this construction is, that the legislature never had it in their" contemplation to make a forfeiture of the negroes in question, and subject the parties to so heavy a penalty for bringing slaves into the state, under the circumstances and for the purposes, the claimants have proved.

Present, Grimke, Waties and Draytok, Judges.

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

Ham v. M'Claws, 1 S.C.L. 93 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1789).

1 S.C.L. 93 (Ham v. M'Claws) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Medlock v. 1985 Ford F-150 Pick Up Vin 1FTDF15YGFNA22049
417 S.E.2d 85 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1992)