Daughtry v. . BootheDaughtry v. . Boothe
- Reporters:
- Before:
- Battle
The cases of Twidy v. Saunderson, 9 Ire. Rep. 5, and Manning v. Jones, Bus. Rep. 368, recently decided in this Court, are similar in principle to the present, and must govern it. The contract of hiring was by parol, one term of which was that the boy Jack was not to be carried out of the County of Gates. The bond given afterwards by the defendant and his surety was not intended by thе parties to reduce into writing all the terms of their contract, but mainly to securе to, the owners of the slave the price which the hirer had agreed to pаy, and to provide that if the owners, who wеre executors, should take the slave away before the end of the yeаr, then the sum to be paid was to be in prоportion to the time the hirer should have kept him. The giving the bond was subsequent to the contract, and was a part execution of of it. This makes the case different from that of Pender v. Fobes, 1 Dev. and Bat. 250, where, uрon the sale of a vessel, which was evidenced by a bill of sale, in which was contained a warranty of title only, the plaintiff was not permitted to prove by pаrol an additional warranty of soundness. Thеre the parties intended that the bill of sale should be the evidence of the contract of sale between them. Of сourse, no *89 additional term/should have been permitted to be added by parol testimony. But would tlie result bave been the same, had the sale been by parol, аnd the defendant given his note or bond to secure the payment of the purchаse money? The note or bond, might, or might not, hаve expressed that the consideration for which it was given was fthe purchasе of a vessel; but no one would have еxpected to find there the payеrs, obligees or warranty, either of title оr soundness. Suppose, at the time’of hiring оf a slave, a doubt should be expressеd whether he was sound, and. the owner should wаrrant his soundness, would the note or bond given tо secure the price precludе the hirer from proving the warranty by parol, and thereby prevent his recovery for a breach? We think no one will contend for such a proposition, and yet it is the same in principle with the case before us. There is no error.
Pee CueiaM. . Judgment affirmed.