OPINION of the Court, by
This wаs an act|0n upon the case for a deceit. The i.'l Ait'.ff i-n the action alleges in suostance, that on thе t th day 0f September 1809, he gave to the defendant his obli-gatioo, to deliver by the 25th of December next there-°r 7 - after, a negro man, between the age of 16 and 25, equal ⅛ value to a negro man by the name of Mosеs, belong-t0 James M’Cailister ; that at the time of executing the obligation, the plaintiff knew nothing of Moses, or his value ; that the defendant well knowing the value 0f Mosts, artfully, deceitfully and with an intent to induce the plaintiff to enter into thе contract, represented to him that Moses was at most not worth more than 2» 450, when in truth and in fact he was worth $ 500 ; thаt the plaintiff, relying with confidence upon the representation of the defendant, was induced thereby tе enter into the said obligation ; that intending to be faithful in the performance of his contract, the plaintiff рrocured and tendered to the defendant, a negro man, who, from the representations made by Ac dеfendant, of Moses, was equal in value to him, and in every other particular answering the description requirеd by the contract ; but that the defendant refused to receive him, alleging him to be of less value than Mases ; that the defendant afterwards commenced an action against him, the plaintiff, on his obligation, and on the triаl gave evidence that Moses was of the value oí ⅞ 500, and recovered a verdict and judgment acсordingly ; which judgment has been fully paid and satisfied. By me»»
The defendant pleaded not guiltv, upon which issue was, joined, and the plaintiff had a verdict aod judgment ; to reverse which this: writ of error is prosecuted by the defendant.
The only point which will be necessary to bе decided is, whether the declaration contains matters, sufficient in law to maintain the action ?
The misreрresentation of the Value of Moses, is ⅛¾ git of the action. That a misrepresentation or suggestion of а falsehood with respect to a fact of tins fond, whereby another is deceived, is a violation of gоod faith, and consequently a deviation from the rules of moral rectitude, must be admitted. It how< ver does not nеcessarily follow, that it is sufficient to induce a right of action. There are many instances in which a person may be guilty of a moral delinquí ncv, without incutring a legal responsibility ; for legal obliganons are necessarily more circumscribed in their nature thau moral duties. Fides servanda is indeed a rule of law, as well as of morality, and will be rigorouriv еnforced in favor of one who is chargeable #.kh no culpable neg iigence or inattention to his оwn interest. But to one so chargeable, the law will not afford relief. Thus it has been decided, that no relief lies, against a vendor for having falsely affirmed that a person bid a particular sum for the estate, although the vendee was thereby induced to purchase, and was deceived in the value of the estate
The ignorance of the plaintiff in this case with resрect to the value of Moses, adds no strength to his claim, Moses belonged to a third person, and for aught thаt appears was as accessible to the plaintiff as the defendant. Besides, if it were the intention оf the parties that the plaintiff should not have been bound to deliver a negro of greater value than hе alleges the defendant represented Moses, it was easy to have made Ms engagement acсording to a stipulated price, instead of referring to an uncertain standard, of which he was ignorant ; and nоt to have done so must be ascribed to a want of that vigilance and attention, which all men ought to bestow upon their own affairs.
The declaration therefore shews no cause of action, and the judgment is consequently erroneous, and must lie reversed.
Notes
Vide acc. 2 Croke, Bayley vs. Merrel, 386—2 Cain's N. Y. Rep. Sexias vs. Wood, 48—Salk 211, Yelverton 20, Bull. N, P. 31—1 Fenb. 379, note a—Gimblin vs. Harrison, Pr. Dec. 372.