Case ID: tenn_17/html/0045-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "GReen, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Wharton, et al. vs. Thompson, guardian, &c.
    
    Where the principal and interest of a sealed note exceeds fifty dollars, a want or failure of consideration, cannot be inquired into, in a suit before a magistrate; the act of 1817, c. 86, only gives this jurisdiction to magistrates where the ‘‘subject matter in controversy” does not exceed fifty dollars.
    Where a slave, in possession of the parly who hired him, at the time of his being hired, was injured, of which inj-iry he afterwards died, but the fact was unknown to both parties, it was held, that the party could not be relieved from his contract, but must, notwithstanding ihe death of the boy, pay the whole amount of his hire.
    This was an action originally commenced before a justice jof tlie peace, for the hire of a negro, and founded upon a note, which was as follows:
    “On or before the 1st of January, 1835, we, or either of us, promise to pay John Thompson, guardian of Margaret and Sarah Buchanan, fifty dollars, for the hire of Daniel, until the 25th of December, 1834, and to furnish said negro with three suits of clothes, one pair of shoes, blanket and hat; as witness our hands and seals, this 1st Jan. 1834.”
    “Wharton & Scott, [l.s.]
    “J. R. Wharton.” [l.s.]
    Upon the trial in the circuit court, defendants offered to prove, that said note was executed on or about the 25th of December, 1833, and not at the time it bears date; that said negro had been wounded previous to its execution, of which wound he died, on the 9th of January, 1834, and that plaintiffs and defendants were ignorant of the injury said negro had sustained, at the time the note was mad§. To the admission of which evidence, plaintiffs excepted, which objection the court sustained, and the evidence was rejected; to this opinion defendants objected, and took atv appeal in the nature of a writ of error to this court. . ,
    
    
      Charles Scott, for plaintiff in error.
    1. Where the subject matter of a suit does not exceed fifty dollars, it may be held upon principles of equity, that parol evidence is admissible to impeach the consideration or validity of any bond or note, as well those with, as without seal. See 2 Scott Rev. 365; act of assembly, 1817, c. 86, I-
    The note, in this case, is for fifty dollars; the interest added makes it more; but the interest upon the note forms no part of the subject matter, but merely goes in the way of damages, as incidental to the subject matter; the interest is only damages for the detention of the debt.
    2. Where there is a failure or want of consideration, a court of equity will relieve. See 1 Fonb. Equity, 370, note G. and authorities there cited: 1 Rutherford’s Ins. 250 to 253: 2 Hen. & Mun. 5: Powell, on Con. 444 to 446.
    The case in 3 Hayw. Rep. 224, cannot apply to this case; there the negro became sick after the hiring, here it existed previous thereto.
    
      T. Washington, for defendant in error.
   GReen, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiffs in error hired a negro boy from the defendant in error, for one year, commencing the 16th day of January, 1834, and executed their note under seal for fifty dollars, payable the 1st. of January, 1835.

Suit was commenced upon said note before a justice of the peace, and by appeal the cause was carried to the circuit court, where, on a trial, the defendant offered to prove, that about the 25th of December, 1833, the boy received a wound from a wad shot against him, of which he died about the 9th of January thereafter; that neither plaintiffs nor defendants knew of the injury at the time the note was executed, but that the plaintiffs in error had hired the boy for the year "£833, and had the control of him at the time the note was executed. To the reception of this testimony the defendant iii\ error objected, and the court sustained the objection; to which the plaintiffs in error excepted and prosecute this appeal in error.

The court did not err in rejecting this testimony. The act-of 1817, c. 86, § 1, does not apply to this case. Here the subject matter in controversy does exceed fifty dollars. The interest is as much the subject matter of the suit as the principal. Hay. Dig. page 380, § 24.

But if the amount in controversy had been under .fifty dollars, the evidence would not have been a good defence to the action, find therefore was inadmissible. The boy was in the possession of the defendants below, when the contract was made, and so continued, until he died. When the boy was hired, Thompson was guilty of no fraud, as it is admitted he was ignorant of the injury the boy had.received. If the parties chose to make the contract, without seeing the boy, risking the condition in which he might be, - there being no fraud, they must abide by it, and are as reponsible as they would have been, had the boy received the injury of which he died, after the hiring. In that case it is settled, that they would be liable for the sum agreed to be paid. 3 Hay. Rep. 224. Let the judgment be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.