Judge Thomas Ruffin (Residing)
The following is my assigned argument for the case of State v. Mann, 1829. My argument was to uphold the fine given unto Mann on an economic basis. The brief description of context is as follows:
In 1829, in Chowan County of North Carolina, the slave owner Elizabeth Jones hired out her slave, Lydia, for a year to a non-slave owner, John Mann. Lydia did not obey Mann, and at one point Mann decided to punish her, possibly by whipping her. Lydia did manage to escape during the punishment, and attempted escape. And as Mann shouted to her, ordering her to stop, but Lydia continued to run. This led to him discharging his weapon and hitting her in the back, wounding her, but not lethally. This led to the State of North Carolina issuing a $10 fine, now worth roughly $280 accounting for modern inflation. (See Inflation Rate between 1829-2020)
Mann then sued the State of North Carolina, stating the fine was unlawful.
Argument to uphold the fine based on economics...
The irreparable damage of a rented piece of property, especially that which is deliberate, unlawfully and unjustly inhibits the renter’s future assets.
Let me explain…
It is generally accepted that, when a transaction is made to rent out a piece of property, only the current and or easily foreseeable risks must be held to the liability of the owner. This, however, is the opposite for damages by factors created afterwards by the renter. In more plain examples…
If a rented plow is found to be in pieces upon the field, is it not reasonable to assume damages to the owner?
If a rented apartment in the city is damaged beyond repair i.e. plumbing flooded the room, windows smashed out, fire spread to destroy furniture, should we not hold the tenant with the match responsible?
It may be one argument to claim accidental harm to a rented piece of property, such is the risk of the lender. But it is another to see the deliberate action of the tenant to kill that same piece of lending out of a fit of rage!
The reason why we must rule this way is because the same piece of property now has little to no value in the market. For no one else wants to rent a damaged plow, nor a burnt room. The owner now has assets that have been rent useless economically, even worse this may have become a liability they must continue to pay for afterwards. Such as, the owner will be paying reparations for months or even years afterwards in food, medicine etc.! All this without hope of repayment.
We see this as logical in the circumstances of the apartment and the plow. We must extend that argument to a whipped and shot slave.
This man has not only ruined property for the owner’s own ends, but their ability to make money off of their investment.
Finding this man not guilty of this fine, miniscule as it already is, may I add, shows no compassion for that of the rightful owner. Furthermore, it degrades the very concept of property which we have in the West! When you are put into the care of another’s property and wealth, you have the ethical, financial and legal responsibility to, at the very least, not deliberately destroy it! Is that truly too much to ask?
REFLECTION
The largest takeaway of this case, is the prominence, and sheer magnitude of property law in the United States' history. As Professor Smith frequently states, it is property law that reigned even above criminal law for much of our nation's history.
This, as history shows, was abused to further the practice of slavery and discrimination across the country. As seen above, despite the numerous and egregious infringements on human rights in the case, they are never brought into question, as acts of immorality held no weight in the eyes of property law.
However, this does not invalidate the need for such property rights. In fact, today, we see an overreaching government trample our right to privacy and property all too frequently, and with no consequence.
Indeed, such rights to an individual have and could again be used for immoral purposes, but it is rarely the government who takes action against immorality, but rather, the eyes of a nation. Morality should come from the citizenry, not the congressmen or women.
WORKS CITED
Caddy, Ian. “Intellectual Capital: Recognizing Both Assets and Liabilities.” Journal of Intellectual Capital, MCB UP Ltd, 1 June 2000, www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/14691930010377469/full/html.
Picture 1- https://www.ncpedia.org/state-v-john-mann
Picture 2- http://www.lewislegalhelp.com/what-is-property-law/
“Inflation Rate between 1829-2020: Inflation Calculator.” $10 In 1829 → 2020 | Inflation Calculator, www.officialdata.org/us/inflation/1829?amount=10.
W. Threlkeld, Liability of a Landlord to Third Persons for Injuries Occurring Outside the Rented Property, 37 KY. L.J. 324 (1949). https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/kentlj37&div=45&g_sent=1&casa_token=&collection=journals
Comments
Post a Comment