Replies

The next step for the case (formerly Scott v. Emerson, now Scott v. Sandford) was a U.S. circuit court, where on January 25, 1854 the case was continued by consent, awaiting decision of Supreme Court of the United States. After reviewing the chapter I am unable to explain why the case is called Scott v. Sandford when the newly designated defendant is named Sanford.

As I understand it, by 1854 Irene Emerson had pretty much left all interests in the Scotts with her brother, John F. A. Sanford. She had moved to Massachusetts in 1850 and married a physician named Calvin Chaffee. When the suit was submitted to the higher court in 1854 it named only Sanford as a defendant and had in a way upped the ante.

The argument in federal court was now claiming that Sanford, as a freeman, was a "citizen" of Missouri. This allowed him to file suit against Sanford of New York in federal court.

All the time that this case, and the other cases, were pending, the Scott's had been rented out and the fees collected had been placed in escrow. A tidy little sum was building up that would be given to whoever was determined the true owner of Scott.

This new suit charged that Sanford, the only one named and the only one now seen as holding Scott in servitude, was in fact guilty of battery and wrongful imprisonment and was asking for $9,000 in damages.

This is really where the argument as to whether Scott was or was not a citizen of the United States. This would determine if he could actually file a suit in the first place.

There is dispute whether Irene had actually given full custody to Sanford or if he had only become the sole interested executor of the "property" (the Scotts). But the case was filed only against Sanford and neither party ever disputed whether the appropriate party was being sued so it is likely that Mrs. Emerson was completely out of the picture by this point.