Compiled Procedings of First Circuit Court Case [Harriet Scott]
Item
“Compiled Procedings of First Circuit Court Case [Harriet Scott]”. First Appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri, 1847-1848, 1848, St. Louis Circuit Court Historical Records Project, accessed October 2, 2026, https://digitalexhibits.library.washu.edu/s/ccr/item/109347
- Filing Name
- Compiled Procedings of First Circuit Court Case [Harriet Scott]
- Description
- Summary of the proceedings in the proeeHarriet Scott case, prepared by clerk John Ruland
- Date
- 1848-03-09
- Court Term
- March Term 1848
- Is Part Of
- First Appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri, 1847-1848
- Identifier
- dre1848.0000.138
- Case ID
- ccr1847.0000.034
- Source
- Missouri State Archives - Supreme Court of Missouri Historical Records
- Rights
- Public Domain
- PDF Download
- Download PDF of all images
- Transcription
-
**Item Page 1**
> Image file: MSA-B161F17a.02.jpg
> Document: Compiled Procedings of First Circuit Court Case [Harriet Scott]
[margin] 1
State of Missouri
County of St. Louis, ss.
Be it remembered that
heretofore to wit, on the sixth day of April Eighteen
hundred and forty six there was filed in the
office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court within
and for the County aforesaid a Petition in words
and figures following to wit
To the Hon. John M. Krum Judge of the St. Louis
Circuit Court.
[margin] Petition
The Petition of Harriet, a woman of color,
states to your honor, that she is claimed as a slave by one Irene
Emerson, of the County of St. Louis, State of
Missouri widow of the late Dr. John Emerson, surgeon
in the United States army. now dec'd That
about eleven years ago, petitiooner was brough from
the state of Virginia by one Major Talliaferra and carried
to Fort Snelling on the St Peters river in the Territory
of Iowa. that after living there, doing labor & service
to the said Talliaferro, for about three years, he the
said Talliaferro, sold your petitioner to the said Dr.
John Emerson, then also stationed at Fort Snelling, who
kept and retained her there for about a year after her
became the owner of her, part of the time in his own
charge and part of the time in charge of Maj. Plimpton
and a Mrs. Henderson. That afterwards said Emerson
was ordered to Fort Jesup in Louisiana, and having
married there, he had Petitioner removed to that post,
from fort Snelling, after remaining at fort Jesup, about
6 months, the s'd Emerson went back to Fort Snelling
on the St Peters river in Iowa Territory and took Petitioner
with him where she remained with hims as a
servant about a year longer, and from there was
brought to St. Louis County aforesaid, where he left her
in charge of his wife hwhiel he proceded to Florida.
---
**Item Page 2**
> Image file: MSA-B161F17a.03.jpg
> Document: Compiled Procedings of First Circuit Court Case [Harriet Scott]
[margin] 2
That said Emerson is now dead, and his widow the
said Irene claims property in her as a slave, but believing,
that under this state of facts, that she is
entitled to freedom, she prays your honor to allow her
to sue in said Court the said Irene Emerson in order to
establish her right to freedom & dhe will pray &c
State of Missouri
St. Louis County, ss.
Harriet of Color, being duly
sworn says that the facts in the foregoing
petition are true.
her
Harriet X of Color
mark
Sworn to & subscribed
the 6th day of April
1846 Before
Mann Butler
J.P.
The Judge of the St. Louis Circuit Court grants
the petitioner leave to sue &c as prayed for, and orders
[margin] permission granted to sue
First. That the Petitioner Harriet be allowed to sue,
on giving security satisfactory to the Clerk for all
costs, that may be adjudged against her.
Second. That said Harriet have reasonable liberty
to attend his counsel and the court, as occasion may require: and that he be not removed out of the jurisdiction of the Court, and that he be not subject to any severity on account of his application for freedom
St. Louis April 6 1846
John M. Krum
Judge St. Louis Circuit Court
State of Missouri
St. Louis County, ss.
Circuit Court of St. Louis County, November Term 1846.
[margin] Declaraion
Harriet a woman of color complains of Irene Emerson
---
**Item Page 3**
> Image file: MSA-B161F17a.04.jpg
> Document: Compiled Procedings of First Circuit Court Case [Harriet Scott]
[margin] 3
of a plea, for that the said defendant on the fourth day
of April in the year Eighteen hundred and forty six, with
force and arms &c. made an assault upon the said Plaintiff
to wit, at Saint Louis in the county aforesaid, and then and there
beat, bruised and ill treated him, the said plaintiff, and
then and there imprisoned her the said plaintiff, and
kept and detained her in prison there, without any
reasonable or probable cause whatsoever, for a long
time to wit for the space of twelve hours then next
following, contrary to the laws of the said state,
and the will of said plaintiff – And the said Plaintiff
avers that before and at the time of ^ the ^ committing
of the said grievances she was and still is a free person
and that the said defendant held and still holds
her in slavery: to the plaintiff's damage ten dollars
and therefore she brings suit &c
F. B. Murdock Pl'ff atty.
County of St. Louis, ss.
The State of Missouri,
To the Sheriff of St. Louis County Greeting:
[margin] Writ
We command you to summon Irene Emerson if she
be found in your county that she be and appear before
the Judge of our Circuit Court on the first day
of the next term thereof, to be held at the city of St. Louis
within and for the county of St. Louis on the third Monday
of November next then and there to answer unto
Harriet a woman of color of a plea in trespass
to the damage of said plaintiff ten dollars. And
have you then there this writ.
Witness, John Ruland, Clerk of our said Court,
with the seal thereof hereto affixed, at office
in the city of St. Louis, this fifth day of April
in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and
forty six.
John Ruland, Clerk.
[seal]
---
**Item Page 4**
> Image file: MSA-B161F17a.05.jpg
> Document: Compiled Procedings of First Circuit Court Case [Harriet Scott]
[margin] 4
I acknowledge myself bound for all costs that may accrue
in the above cause. Witness my hand and seal, at St.
Louis, this 6 day of April 1846.
F. B. Murdoch [seal]
[margin] Shffs Return
Executed this writ in the County of Saint Louis
on the seventh day of April 1846 by reading
it and the petition & order of the judge to Irene
Emmerson, the defendant.
Service $2.00
notice 50
$2.50
William Milburn Sheriff.
By Henry B. Belt, Deputy
[margin] Notice
Harriet a Woman of Colour
Take notice that on
the 9th day of April 1846, I shall move the Court to
dismiss the suit of yourself against me for your Freedom
now pending in this Court, on the grounds that
the conditional orders by the Judge in this case directed,
have not been complied with according to the law in
such case made & provided.
Irene Emmerson
By
G. W. Goode Atty
April 8th, 1846
[notice] Shffs Return
Served the within notice in the County of Saint
Louis on the 8th day of April 1846 by delivering
a true Copy of the same to Harriett a woman of
Colour
William Milburn
Sheriff
fee $0.50
Filed Nov 19 1846
[margin] Plea
Harriett a woman of Colour Plff
vs
Irene Emmerson Defdt
In the St. Louis Circuit
---
**Item Page 5**
> Image file: MSA-B161F17a.06.jpg
> Document: Compiled Procedings of First Circuit Court Case [Harriet Scott]
2
[margin] 5
Court Nov. Term 1846
And the said Defendant by G. W. Good, her attorney
comes and defends the force and injury when &c. & says
that she is not guilty of the said several grievances
above laid to her charge or any or either of them, or
any part thereof in manner & form as the said
plaintiff has above thereof complained against
her' and of this she, the said defendant puts herself
upon the country
G. W. Good
Attorney for Defendant
[margin] order
Harriet of Color
vs.
Irene Emerson
Freedom in the St Louis Circuit Court
April Term 1847 July 31st 1847
It is ordered that plaintiff make her
election on aor before the first day of the next term of
this Court whether she will prosecute this suit, or another
suit by her commenced against Alexander Sandford,
Samuel Russell and Irene Emerson.
Harriet of Color
vs.
Irene Emerson
It appearing to the Court that
certain proceedings had in this cause
on the thirtieth day of June Eighteen
hundred and forty seven, were by misktake omitted
the same be now entereed as of that day in the words
and figures following to wit:
Harriet of Color
vs
Irene Emerson
June 8th 1847
Trespass
[margin] Judgment
"This day come the parties by their
"attorneys and comes also a jury, to wit; John Sappington
"Leonidas Willson, James Longworth, Benjamin Perry, John
"Rudder, Thomas Rudder, William Stanton Richard Tumilty,
"Isaac Wiliams, John McLaughlin, Hugh Miller,
"and Nathan McKinstory, twelve good and lawful men,
"who being duly elected tried and sworn the truth to
"speak, upon the issue joined between the parties
---
**Item Page 6**
> Image file: MSA-B161F17a.07.jpg
> Document: Compiled Procedings of First Circuit Court Case [Harriet Scott]
[margin] 6
"upon their oaths do find and say that the defendant
is not guilty in the manner and form as in the
said plaintiff hath in her said declaration complained
against her: It is therefore considered that the
said Defendant go hence wihtout delay and recover of
the plaintiff her costs herein and have thereof execution.
The plaintiff, by her attornyes, files a motion
for a new trial herein, In Cir Court. April Term
[margin] Motion for new trial
1847. Now at this day comes the plaintiff in the
above cause and moves the Court to set aside the
verdicet 1 Because said verdicat is against the
evidence 2 Because said verdicat is against law
& evidence 3 Because said verdicat is against the
weight of evidence, in this behalf and have thereof execution
Whereupon the defendant,
S. M. Bay atty
for plaintiffs
Decembeer 2d 1847 The following proceedings wer
had in words and figures following to wit:
[margin] order
On consideration of the motion of the plaintiff
for a new trial herein, It is ordered that said
motion be sustained, and that the verdict and
judgment herein rendered be set aside and a
new trial had. And on the fourth day of
March Eighteen hundred and forty eight the following
Bill of exceptions was filed in said cause to wit
[margin] Bill of Exceptions
Be it remembered that on the trial of this cause
the plaintiff to maintain the issue on her part
and to establish her right to freedom red in evidence
to the Jury wihtout objection the depositions of
Miles A. Clark and Catharine Anderson, and
which depositions are in the words and figurs
following to wit: Catherine A. Anderson of
the City of St. Louis of lawful age, being duly sworn
and examined on the part of the Plaintiff deposeth
---
**Item Page 7**
> Image file: MSA-B161F17a.08.jpg
> Document: Compiled Procedings of First Circuit Court Case [Harriet Scott]
[margin] 7
and saith:— I know Harriet Scott, Plaintiff in the
above case. During the years 1837 and 1838, I knew
her as a slave, at Fort Snelling, at the mouth of
St. Peters river on the west side of the Mississippi
river, in the territorial limits of the United States. Said Scott at that time was held as a slave by a Doctor Emerson, a Surgeon in the United
States. said Harriet at that time was held as a
slave by a Doctor Emerson, a surgeon in the United
States Army, who was then posted at Fort Snelling.
I know the Plaintiff to be held for only one
year by said Emerson as a slave. During that
time said Emerson exercised control over and used
Plaintiff entirely as a slave. Since that time I have
only seen plaintiff occasionally. I knew Harriet the
wife of said Dred Scott. I first knew her at Fort Snelling.
She too was a slave of Doctor Emerson, at the same time that
I knew Dred there. This woman in the year 1837
was hired to me as a servant by Doctor Emerson,
and was in my family some two or three months.
I knew said Dred for the same length of time that
I did Harriet. During that whole time he was
held in slavery by Doctor Emerson. When I went to
Fort Snelling to live, I found Doctor Emerson posted
there. How long he had been there I do not know.
Doctor Emerson left Fort Snelling in the fall of 1837,
but left these slaves there, hired out. They remained
there until April 1838, when they left for the south
for Fort Gibson, I think. During the whole time that
I knew them at Fort Snelling they were held in Slavery
by Doctor Emerson or by persons to whom they were
hired by him. They were universally known there
to be Doctor Emerson's slaves. At the time that I was
at Fort Snelling my name was Thompson. I was then
the wife of James L. Thompson a Lieutenant in the army
of the United States. The plaintiffs in these cases are
now in St. Louis, and I have been informed and
---
**Item Page 8**
> Image file: MSA-B161F17a.09.jpg
> Document: Compiled Procedings of First Circuit Court Case [Harriet Scott]
[margin] 8
believe, are at Mr. Samuel Russell's. I went to Fort
Snelling in the latter part of May, or first of June,
1837 and left in May 1838. Catherine A. Anderson.
Miles H. Clark of lawful age, being produced,
sworn and examined on the part of the plaintiffs deposeth
and says: I know the negro woman named Harriet
who is the plaintiff in this suit. I first knew Harriet
sometime in the year 1834 at Rock Island in the state
of Illinois. She was then a servant belonging to Doctor
Emerson, who was, then an Assistant Surgeon in the
Army of the United States, and was stationed at Rock
Island. She was held in service there by Doctor Emerson
as a slave, from the time I first knew her, until
April or May 1836. At that time Rock Island was
evacuated by the troops to which Doctor Emerson was
attached, and the troops with Doctor Emerson went
from Rock Island to Fort Snelling, which is situated
at the junction of the St. Peters river with the
Mississippi river on the west side of the Mississippi,
within the territorial limits of the United
States and North of the State of Missouri.
From the time the troops arrived at Fort Snelling
until the 7th day of July 1837 I knew Harriet
to be held by Doctor Emerson, as a slave, at Fort
Snelling. At the last mentioned date I left that
place. During all the time I knew Harriet at
Rock Island and Fort Snelling, he was claimed
by Doctor Emerson as a slave, and used by him
as such During the time I have mentioned I was
in the army of the United States, and attached
to the same troops, to which Doctor Emerson was
attached. I am now Second Lieutenant in Captain
McNair's Company of Volunteers known as the "Missouri
Guards", raised for service in New Mexico, and
---
**Item Page 9**
> Image file: MSA-B161F17a.10.jpg
> Document: Compiled Procedings of First Circuit Court Case [Harriet Scott]
3
[margin] 9
expect, probably some time next week, the company
will leave for its destination Further he saith not.
Miles H. Clark
State of Missouri Count of St. Louis, ss
I John W. Colvin
a Justice of the Peace, within and for the County
aforesaid, do herby certify that Miles H. Clark, the
above named deponent was by me sworn to testify the
whole truth of his knowledge touching the matter in
controversy in the causes aforesaid, and that his
deposition was reduced to writing and enscribed
by him in my presence, on the thirteenth day of
May 1849, between the hours of eight o clock in the
forenoon and six o clock in the afternoon, at
the office of Charles D. Drake in the City of St.
Louis, in the County of St. Louis and State of Missouri.
Given under my hand May 13th 1849
John Colvin Justice of the Peace, and further
to maintain the issue and to establish the right
to freedom called as a witness S. Surssell who being
duly sworn upon his oath testified as follows
that Dred Scott and his wife Harriet (the planitifff
in this suit) with their childern were hired
by him from Mrs. Emerson the wife of Dr. Emerson,
that he has paid the hire of these negroes to Col. Sandford
the father of Mrs. Ememrson. On cross-examination
he stated that he did not hire the said negroes
himself but that they had been hired by his wife
or that his wife had made an arrangement with
Mrs. Emmerson for them, that in fact all that he knew
about it was from his wife other than he had paid the
hire to Col. Sandford, that he in fact knew nothing of
the hiring, but what he had learned from his wife,
that he paid the money to Col. Sandford, and supposed
that it was for Mrs. Emmerson, but that he did
not know. Henry T. Blow a witness on part of
---
**Item Page 10**
> Image file: MSA-B161F17a.11.jpg
> Document: Compiled Procedings of First Circuit Court Case [Harriet Scott]
[margin] 10
plaintiff testified that plaintiff was formerly owner
by the father of witness who sold him to Doct.
Emmerson. The defendant offered no evidence, and
there was no other evidence offered to the jury who
thereupon found a verdict for the defendant and
afterwards on the 30th day of June in the year 1847
the Plaintiff by her attorney filed a motion accompanied
with reasons to set aside the verdict of
the Jury in the cause, and that a new trial be
granted her and which motion and reasons are
in the words and figures following to wit, (See Page
[margin] Motion for new Trail
6) and that on the 10th day of July thereafter she plaintiff
by her attorney by leave of the Court filed an additional
reason in support of his motion for a new
Trial, and which additional reason is in the words
and figures following to wit. (In the St. Louis Circuit
Court April Term 1847 Filed July 1st 1847)
[margin] Addition'l Reasons
Now at this day comes the said plaintiff & moves
the Court to set aside the verdict rendered herein &
grant a new trial in the above entitled cause for the
following reason, in addition to the reasons mentioned
in the motion heretofore filed to wit: Because the
said plaintiff is surprised by the testimony of the
witness Russell who testified in this cause. S. M.
Bay atty for plff. and that on the 24th day of
July following there was filed an affidavit in
said cause purporting to be made by Dred Scott
the plaintiff in a suit against the same defendant,
pending in said Court, and which was also considered
as on file in the present cause in support of the
motion for a new trial Filed July 24th 1847.
[margin] Affidavit of Dred Scott
Dred Scott vs. Irene Emerson. Dred Scott, the
plaintiff in this cause in support of his motion
for a new trial states uopn oath, that he was surprised
---
**Item Page 11**
> Image file: MSA-B161F17a.12.jpg
> Document: Compiled Procedings of First Circuit Court Case [Harriet Scott]
[margin] 11
in the testmiony of the witness Samuel Russell, by
whom he expected to prove that he this affiant was
hired as a slave by said Russell from the defendant,
previous to the commencement of this suit & that said
Russell paid to said defendant money for the hire of
this affiant as a slave, and that he did not know previous
to, or on the trial of said cause that he could
prove said facts, or could prove that he was claimed
as a slave or held in slavery by said defendant,
by any other person then said Russell, and therefore
relied solely upon the testimony of said Russell
to prove such facts as were necessary to maintain
said suit against said defenadnt, or the person
holding this affiant in slavery. This affiant in support
of this affidavit makes an exhibit of a certain letter
addressed to said Russell by J. R. Lackland one of
the counsel of this affiant & the answer of said Russell
to the said letter from which it will appear
that previous to said trial said Russell informed
said Lackland that he said Russell hired this
affiant in March 1846 from the defendant & that
he said Russell paid the said hire of this affiant
to said defendant. This affiant further states that
relying solely upon the testimony of said Russel to prove
those facts & knowing no other person by whome he
could prove the same facts or other facts tending to
the same and he went into trial when to his surprise
said Russell testified in effect that he did
not hire thisaffiant from said defendant nor did
he pay said hire to said defendant, but that his knowledge
of such facts was soley derived from the information
of his wife. This affiant thus taken by
surprise in the testimony of said Russell was
unable to establish said facts to the satisfaction
of the Jury, for which reasons, he supposes a
---
**Item Page 12**
> Image file: MSA-B161F17a.13.jpg
> Document: Compiled Procedings of First Circuit Court Case [Harriet Scott]
[margin] Harriet 12
verdict was rendered against him. This affiant states
that pervious to said trial he had no knowledge
that the wife of said Russell had any knowledge
that this affiant was held in slavery by said defendant,
but that if a new trial is granted to him he expects
to prove by the testimony of the wife of said
Russell that Defendant, previous to the commencement
of said suit hired this affiant to the wife of said
Russell, actiing as the agent of her said husband, and
that her acts in this respect were ratified & approved
by her said husband & that said defendant claimed
this affiant as her slave. This affiant avers that
previous to said trial he had no knowledge that the
wife of said Russell, nor any other person than
said Russell had any knowledge that this affiant
was held in slavery by said defendant.
This affiant avers that the facts set forht in
his petittion to sue for his freedom are true. That he
was & is a free man & was at the time of the commencement
of this suit held in slavery by said defendant
that the verdict against this affiant is unjust
& oppressive tending to deprive him of rights to which
he is entitled by the laws of the land 0 and that
upon a new trial he will be able to establish his
rights to freedom & to prove that he was & is unjustly
& unlawfully held in slavery by said defendant
Dred X Scott his mark. Subscribed & sworn this 24th July
1847 Jno Ruland clerk . And that on the following
and succeeding term of this Court to wit at the
November Term of the year 1847 on the __ day of
November in said last mentioned year the said motion
came on to be heard and upon argument of counsel
was by the Court adjudged to be sustained & a
new trial was granted to said plaintiff in the cause
---
**Item Page 13**
> Image file: MSA-B161F17a.14.jpg
> Document: Compiled Procedings of First Circuit Court Case [Harriet Scott]
4
[margin] 13
to which decision of the Court sustaining said
motion and granting a new trial in the cause the
defendant by her counsel excepted and now excepts
and to preserve the evienec of which the
counsel for hte defedant assk that this his bill
of Exceptions may be signed sealed and made a
part of the record all which is doen accordingly.
A. Hamilton
Judge
Index
| | | |
|---|---|---|
| Petition | Page | 1 |
| Declaration | " | 2 |
| Writ | " | 3 |
| Judgment | " | 5 |
| Motion for new trial | " | 6 |
| Order overruling motion | " | 6 |
| Bill of Exceptions | " | 6 |
---
**Item Page 14**
> Image file: MSA-B161F17a.15.jpg
> Document: Compiled Procedings of First Circuit Court Case [Harriet Scott]
~~57?~~
(14)
Irene Emmerson
Plff in Error
vs
Harriet of color
Deft in Error
Bill of Exceptions
Record
Filed March 9 1848
H.L. Boon clk
Fee $4 : 50/100
14 to 24
---
**Item Page 15**
> Image file: MSA-B161F17a.16.jpg
> Document: Compiled Procedings of First Circuit Court Case [Harriet Scott]
> Legal Function: case jacket
March Term 1848
No 23
14# J.C.
Irene Emmerson
vs
Harriet (of color)
“Compiled Procedings of First Circuit Court Case [Harriet Scott]”. First Appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri, 1847-1848, 1848, St. Louis Circuit Court Historical Records Project, accessed October 2, 2026, https://digitalexhibits.library.washu.edu/s/ccr/item/109347