The plaintiff, a free man of colour, purchased Marie, a slave, in 1849 from Pierre Landry for [dollars] 400 with the stipulation that Landry reserved the usufruct of Marie during his lifetime. Following Landry's death, the plaintiff sued his heirs for possession. He lost his case at the District Court after Landry's heirs alleged that the sale was simulated and that Landry had, upon the testimony of a witness, returned to the plaintiff the [dollars] 400 used to purchase Marie. The Supreme Court reversed the judgement, rescinding the sale and ordering the plaintiff to be acknowledged as owner of one-third of Marie and her children, the remaining two-thirds as the property of Landry's heirs. The case was remanded back to the District Court for the purpose of dividing the property between both parties.

The plaintiff sued the defendant to recover a slave of whom he claimed possession. Miss Sém?re sold Joseph (also Charles), a slave, to the defendant upon agreement that he secure his emancipation. Having failed to do so due to Joseph's misconduct, the defendant returned the slave to Miss Sém?re who refused to take him. He attempted to return Joseph on several occasions. After Miss Sém?re's death, her heirs sought to recover Joseph claiming that the act of sale was simulated and subject to the condition that the defendant secured Joseph's emancipation. The Supreme Court determined that the sale was absolute and that the defendant had attempted to secure Joseph's emancipation but was unsuccessful owing to his misconduct. Judgment was affirmed in favour of the defendant.

The defendant appealed from a judgment which accused him of keeping slaves without any white or free coloured person as the manager. The Supreme Court ordered that the original judgment be annulled and reversed.