. The cases cited by Putnam are probably Smith v. Gould, 2 [not 3]Ld. Raym.
1274, 92 Eng. Rep.
338, 2 Salk.
666, 91 Eng. Rep.
1705); Smith v. Browne & Cooper, note 11
above; and Chamberline v. Harvey, 5 Mod.
182, 87 Eng. Rep.
1696). In the Gould
case it was held that trover for a Negro will not lie, “no more than for any other
man; for the common law takes no notice of Negroes being different from other men.”
Putnam's reference to Scripture is probably a quotation from Salkeld's argument for
the plaintiff in Gould
“that a negro
was a chattel by the law of the plantations, and therefore trover would lie for him;
that by the Levitical
law the master had power to kill his slave, and in Exodus
xx, ver. 21 it is said, he is but the master's money.” Chamberline v. Harvey was
cited in the margin of both reports of Smith v. Gould. In a long opinion the court
held “that no action of trespass would lie for the taking away a man generally, but
there might be a special Action of Trespass for taking his Servant, per quod Servitium amisit.”
at 191. See Pleadings Book, Form XI