¶1 This case has been argued by counsel. We have (273) considered it, and have come to the same conclusions that his Honor did upon each and every point, and for the very reasons given by him.
¶2 PER CURIAM. Affirmed. *194
Download
Copy
Embed on your site
iframe Markdown Preview card Button Hover to preview · click to copy the code
Case posture Posture APPEAL from NASH Spring Term, 1847; Bailey, J .
This was an action brought to recover damages for the violation of a parol agreement. The evidence was that the defendant had charge of
several negroes belonging to the infant children of Lawrence Battle. She was not their guardian, but acted as their next friend in hiring them out. The defendant advertised that she would hire these negroes on 5 January, 1846, at the courthouse door; on that day she brought the negroes to the courthouse and employed one Griffin to cry them and one Smith to keep the account of hires and take notes. The terms of hiring were written on a piece of paper and read to the persons who were assembled at the hiring. It was objected by the defendant that the witness could not speak of the terms unless the paper was produced. This objection was overruled, and the witness stated that the terms as read from the paper were that all persons who hired negroes should give bond with approved security and that they should be well clothed. Mr. Griffin, the crier, stated that he put up a negro woman to the highest bidder; that the plaintiff bid for her loud enough for him to hear; that many persons were present and that the defendant was present; that he was standing at the door of the courthouse, and she was back in the passage, but whether she heard the bid made by the plaintiff or knew that he (270) was bidding, he could not state; that the defendant had not told him not to cry the plaintiff's bid; that after the plaintiff bid, some other persons bid, and the plaintiff continued to bid by nods or winks, which he understood as bids; that this manner of bidding was not unusual, but that others bid in the same way for the negro woman; that the plaintiff was the highest and last bidder, and the negro woman was knocked off to him; and Mr. Smith stated that he entered his name upon the book which he kept as the hirer of that woman. In a short time the plaintiff offered his note with good security for the hire, but the defendant refused to receive the same and refused to deliver the negro woman. The defendant then offered to prove that the plaintiff had the character of a cruel man to negroes, and that he was unfit to have any control over them. This was objected to by the plaintiff and rejected by the court. The defendant then offered to prove that, before this hiring, the defendant had said to the plaintiff that he should never have any negroes over which she had any control, alleging as a reason that he was a cruel man, that she was afraid he would kill them, and that he was poor and unable to feed them. The plaintiff objected, but the testimony was received. The witness stated that twelve months before, at the hiring of these negroes by Nicholas Arrington, the defendant told the plaintiff he should never hire any negroes that she had the management of; that he was a cruel man to slaves, and that she would be afraid that he would kill them and that he would not give them enough to eat; and that, at another time, she told the plaintiff he should not have any negroes she had the control of. It was furthermore in evidence on the part of the defendant that a few minutes before the hiring commenced the witness
heard the defendant say to the plaintiff he should not pester her about the negroes; that she intended to take all the women herself; that immediately after the woman was knocked off, the defendant declared that the plaintiff should not have the woman, assigning as a (271) reason that he was a cruel man to negroes. The court charged the jury that if the defendant employed Griffin to cry the property as her agent, without informing him that he was not to cry the bid of the plaintiff or without making that known when the negro was put up, and the plaintiff was the last and highest bidder, and the property was knocked off to him, that the act of the crier was the act of the defendant, and that his assent was her assent; that the contract of hiring was complete, provided the hirer tendered a good and sufficient bond for the hire, and this was a question for them; that if the defendant had told the crier not to cry the plaintiff's bid, she had a right to do so, and if the crier had, notwithstanding, cried his bid and knocked off the property to him, she would not be bound by it, although he professed to act as her agent; that although she had informed the plaintiff before this hiring he should never hire any negroes put under her charge, or, if just before the hiring out she said to him he should not have any of the negroes, and she afterwards permitted the hiring to go on and the negro woman was knocked off to him, it was too late, after the negro was knocked off, to say that he would not have her; and if the plaintiff tendered a good bond agreeably to the terms of hiring and she refused to deliver the woman, the plaintiff was entitled to recover nominal damages. Under these instructions the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff Rule for a new trial for misdirection. Rule discharged, and the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court. Source: CourtListener
