Richard Lunsford

The State of Ohio v. Thomas D. Carneal, which occurred during Justice John McLean's (Wikipedia) tenure on the Ohio Supreme Court, foreshadowed McLean's future dissent in an important fugitive slavery case, Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857). In Carneal, a black man named Richard Lunsford, a Kentucky slave, applied for a writ of habeas corpus to obtain freedom from his owner, Thomas D. Carneal. The Ohio Constitution of 1802 forbade slavery in the state, and at issue was whether slaves owned by a man traveling in Ohio became free once they traveled to Ohio and whether a slave who resided in Kentucky could be sent to work in Ohio without gaining his freedom. Lunsford, as a slave who was regularly sent to work in Ohio, sued on the grounds that, by having him travel to work in Cincinnati for periods of over a week, Thomas Carneal forfeited his property rights in Lunsford. The Court ruled, with McLean issuing its opinion, that since Carneal sold Lunsford to a Mr. James Riddle, the man who sent Lunsford to Cincinnati, he did in fact forfeit his right to be Lunsford's owner. The most notable portion of this case was McLean's opinion, which highlighted his personal distaste for the institution of slavery: “Were it proper to consider it, the Court, as well as from the principles recognized by our Constitution and Laws, could not hesitate in declaring that SLAVERY [emphasis in original], except for the punishment of crimes, is an infringement upon the sacred rights of man: Rights, which he derives from his Creator, and which are inalienable.”

from Wikipedia