Moffitt vs. Garr et al. was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1861 that dealt with the issue of whether or not a slave owner could recover damages for an injury to his slave caused by another person's negligence. The court held that, under common law principles, such recovery was allowed and thus affirmed the lower court’s decision awarding damages to Moffitt for injuries suffered by his slave due to Garr’s negligence. In its opinion, the court noted that slaves were considered property at common law and therefore their owners had certain rights associated with them as they would any other piece of personal property owned by them. Furthermore, it reasoned that since slavery was legal in many states at this time then these same rights should be extended to those owning slaves regardless of where they resided or what state laws applied regarding slavery itself. As such, it concluded that allowing recovery for negligent acts against one's own slaves did not violate public policy nor did it conflict with any existing statutes on slavery within individual states; rather it simply recognized pre-existing common law principles which protected all forms of private property from harm caused through another person’s negligence or carelessness

In the case of Moffitt vs. Garr et al., Chief Justice Taney delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had misinterpreted and misapplied the law to reach their conclusion. He stated that, under existing laws, slaves were considered property and could be sold or transferred as such without any legal impediment. Furthermore, he argued that if Congress intended to limit this right of transferability it would have done so explicitly in its legislation rather than leaving it up to judicial interpretation. Additionally, Taney asserted that even if there was some ambiguity in the law regarding slave transfers between states, then state legislatures should be allowed to decide how best to handle these matters instead of having them decided by federal courts. Finally, he concluded by stating his belief that slavery was an institution sanctioned by both God and nature and thus should not be interfered with unless absolutely necessary for public safety or welfare reasons.