Case ID: scl_9/html/0447-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Colcock.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jacob Bollinger against John Thurston.
    Debt will lie upon a single bill for a sum certain, though it be payable in produce. Upon the plea of non estf actum. “Sgff®,“0devinthewS deration: he must ^fnSff^Vsuch matter'
    This was an action of debt, brought on a single bond, in the words foilowing:
    “ Be it known, that I, John Thurston, do acknowledge myself indebted to Jacob Bollinger ° " ° • the sum of two hundred dollars, to be paid m cotton, at ten dollars per hundred weight, and the rise to be allowed to the said John Thurston; the cotton to be delivered on the first day of January, 1813.
    “ Signed, in the presence of us, this 17th day of January, 1812, the above obligation, given for value received. Witness my hand and seal the day above written.
    (Signed) JOHN THURSTON,
    JOHN MILLANDER.” ‘
    The defendant pleaded non est factum, and, on the trial, offered evidence to prove a failure of consideration. The plaintiff opposed the introduction of the testimony, on the ground that it operated as a surprise; for he came prepared on the issue tendered by the defendant, and could not by his pleading have supposed that he would have been driven into evidence to support the consideration of the bond. The evidence was rejected as irrelevant to the issue, and the Jury found for the plaintiff! The defendant now moves the Constitutional Court to arrest the judgment, and to enter a nonsuit:
    1st. Because the instrument on which the action was founded, was not sufficiently proven, as the subscribing witness was not produced.
    2dly. If sufficiently proven, the instrument did not support the declaration; for debt will not lie on such an instrument.
    3dly. For a new trial, because the presiding Judge decided, that a failure of consideration, or want of consideration, could not be given in evidence under the general issue, without some notice to the plaintiff!
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Colcock.

The subscribing witness did not appear, and the handwriting of the obligor was satisfactorily proven. The act of 1802, 16th clause, declares, “ that absence of any witness to a boffit or note, shall not be deemed a good cause by any Court of Justice, for postponing atrial respecting the same; but that the signature to such bond or note may be proved by other testimony, unless the defendant, at the time of. filing his or her plea, shall swear or affirm, according to the form of his religious persuasion, that the signature of the bond or note in suit is not his or hers,” &c. The defendant in this case had not made an affidavit, swearing to such belief, and therefore, other testimony was clearly admissible. Upon the second ground there is not now a doubt. The instrument is for a sum certain, though to be discharged in two ways; it is under the hand and seal of the defendant, the obligor, and is by himself called an obligation. It is what may be technically called a single bond. Debt is an action founded on an express contract, in which the certainty of the sum duly appears. (1 Esp.) The plaintiff has declared on the instrument, in tine usual words, “ his certain writing obligatory,” and has concluded with a proferí, and the instrument produced is the writing obligatory of the defendant. Upon the third ground I entertain as little doubt. As to the doctrine of the English law under the general issue, you may give in evidence any thing which proves the deed void at the time of pleading, such as erasure, interlineation, addition to, or other alterations of the deed, in a material point, by the obligor, or even by a stranger, without the privity of the obligor. In like manner, coverture or lunacy, at the time of the execution, or that the bond was given to a feme covert, and her husband disagreed to it, or that it was delivered as an escrow, or executed when he was so drunk that he did not know. But if the deed be voidable only as by infancy or duress, in these and the like cases, the obligor should not plead non est factum, for it is his deed at the time of action brought, and must be avoided by special pleading. (5 Rep. 119. 1 Selwyn, 562, 564.) The defendant stated, that the bond was given for a negro, which afterwards was proved to be unsound. Here, ^ consideration existed, and the inquiry 7 1 . whether it was good and sufficient ? It is clear the bond was not void, but only voidable.

It is said, however, that a practice has prevailed in our Courts, of going into the want or failure of consideration, on the plea of the general issue. I am a stranger to the practice myself; but as it is said to exist, a new trial is granted, upon the condition that the defendant gives the plaintiff notice of his intention to give in evidence the want or failure of consideration, and that it be considered hereafter that such notice be always required in such cases.

Grimké, JVott, Cheves, Gantt, and Johnson, J. concurred.