Bernard v. Merrill, 1898
View case here

This case cites a case about slaves or slavery.

Year: 1898
Citation: 91 Me. 358
Jurisdiction: Maine
People:
Law type:
Full name: Timothy Bernard vs. Dennis D. Merrill, and others
Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court

Summary

In Bernard v. Merrill, the plaintiff is a father who is suing defendants for injury to his child, which resulted in the loss of the child’s services. Bernard v. Merrill, 91 Me. 358, 360, 40 A. 136, 137 (1898) The father had previously sued defendants as next friend of his child and judgment in that suit was entered in defendants’ favor. Id. at 361, 40 A. at 137. The defendants argued that the father as next friend was a party to the previous suit and was therefore estopped from bringing a new suit arising out of the same occurrence. Id., 40 A. at 137. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court held that the judgment against him in his legal capacity as next friend of his child did not estop him from bringing a claim in his separate legal capacity as himself. Id. at 363, 40 A. at 138. The court’s reasoning was based in part on the concept that the father as next friend would have not been entitled to any award of damages in the child’s favor, because his authority was limited to that of a next friend and the true party to the case was the child himself. Id. at 361-62, 40 A. at 137. The court cited numerous cases to support this contention, one of which is Linton v. Walker, 8 Fla. 144 (1858). In Linton, the Supreme Court of Florida addressed a claim brought by children who had inherited slaves from their deceased mother (who had a life expectancy in the slaves under her father’s will, with the slaves going to the grandchildren upon her death). Linton, 8 Fla. at 150. It isn’t clear what connection the case has to Florida, as the will was written in Georgia, id., and I could not find any specific reference to locations in Florida. At the time of the mother’s death, the slaves had been hired out to the defendant by the mother’s husband. Id. The court held that on the mother’s death, the will clearly devised the slaves as property to the children, and that the father no longer had the right to hire out the children’s property to another for his own purposes and benefit. Id. at 151-53 (dismissing the case nevertheless after holding that the proper remedy could only be granted in a separate court). The Florida court repeatedly uses the word negroes interchangeably with slaves, and not once appears to recognize the slaves as humans but treats them as if they are exactly like any other property. See id. at 150-53. It seems entirely unnecessary for the Maine court to have cited Linton. It does not directly support the court’s point and it is in a string cite containing eight total cases. See Bernard, 91 Me. at 361-62, 40 A. at 137. None of the other cases cite slavery, and the few that I reviewed are more directly on point in dealing with a parent as next friend of a child.

Cites 1 case: