Commonwealth v. Aves
| Commonwealth v. Aves | |
|---|---|
 |
|
| Court | Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court |
| Decided | 1836 |
| Cases cited | Somerset v Stewart |
| Case history | |
| Prior action(s) | Decision in favor of plaintiffs. |
| Subsequent action(s) | Med Slater placed in the custody of a state-appointed guardian |
| Holding | |
| A slave brought to a free state by his or her master is thereby set free. | |
| Court membership | |
| Chief Judge | Lemuel Shaw |
| Case opinions | |
| Decision by | Lemuel Shaw |
Commonwealth v. Aves, 35 Mass. 193 (1836), was a case in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on the subject of transportation of slaves to free states. In August 1836, Chief Justice Lemuel Shaw ruled that slaves brought to Massachusetts "for any temporary purpose of business or pleasure" were entitled to freedom. The case was the most important legal victory for abolitionists in the 1830s and set a major precedent throughout the North.
In 1836, Mary Aves Slater of New Orleans went to Boston to visit Thomas Aves, her father. She brought with her a six-year-old girl named Med who, under Louisiana law, was considered the property of Slater's husband, Samuel Slater. When members of the Boston Female Anti-Slavery Society learned that an enslaved girl was staying in Boston, they hired attorney Rufus Choate to bring the matter to court. Choate was joined by abolitionist attorneys Ellis Gray Loring and Samuel E. Sewall.
A writ of habeas corpus was served on Thomas Aves, the owner of the house where Med was staying. It was served in the name of a male abolitionist, Levin H. Harris, because it was considered unseemly in those days for women to take part in public affairs. On August 21, 1836, the case was brought before Chief Justice Lemuel Shaw of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
Benjamin Robbins Curtis, later known for his dissent in the Dred Scott decision, represented Aves. Curtis argued that the doctrine of comity required Massachusetts to respect the laws of Louisiana, and therefore Mrs. Slater should be allowed to bring Med home with her.
Loring argued that the comity principle did not apply "in doubtful cases," and that there was no consensus on slavery; England and several other European nations had a policy of "disregarding the lex loci in the case of slaves," giving them "immediate and entire liberty" when they were brought there from another country. He characterized slavery as immoral, and expounded on the commonwealth's longstanding commitment to liberty.
...
Wikipedia