Case ID: miss_18/html/0313-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice ThacheR", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Peter Fisher, Administrator of George Fisher vs. William W. Leach.
    The high court of errors and appeals will not disturb a verdict, although found contrary to a portion of the evidence, unless it is clearly against the evidence, or the palpable preponderance of evidence.
    In an action of replevin for certain slaves, the evidence, in some particulars, was contradictory ; but at least one witness stated, that the plaintiff’s intestate delivered the slaves in controversy to the defendant, to be held by him until their services and labor had remunerated the defendant in the amount in which the plaintiff’s intestate was indebted to him ; on'the testimony, the court below instructed the jury, that if they believed these facts, the defendant had the right to the slaves until the debt due to him was paid, and the jury found for the defendant; it was held, the high court of errors and appeals would not disturb the verdict.
    Where an administrator brought an action of replevin, to recover slaves of his intestate, and the defendant set up that he held them under an agreement with the intestate, that he should do so until a debt the intestate owed him should be paid out of their labor and services, and the jury found for the defendant; it was held, that their verdict would not preclude the administrator from a proceeding in chancery, to ascertain what sum was due the defendant, and have the matter finally adjudicated.
    In error from the circuit court of Yazoo county; Hon. Robert C. Terry, judge.
    On the 13th of April, 1844, Fisher, administrator of George Fisher, sued out a writ of replevin for four slaves, against William W. Leach. At the November term, 1846, a trial was had, and the jury found for the defendant."
    On the trial, the plaintiff read the answer of the defendant to a bill of discovery filed in the case; in which, in answer to the discovery sought, the defendant denies that he ever offered to hire the slaves from the plaintiff, or promised to deliver them to him on the day the plaintiff, as administrator, had advertised them for sale; but stated, that he had promised to deliver them on that day, provided, the plaintiff would settle with him, the debt due him by the intestate.
    John S. Wallace testified, that in the year 1842, he hired part of the slaves in controversy of George Fisher in his lifetime, in consideration of witness’s boarding Leach at his house; Leach being at that time, and for some time afterwards, the clerk of George Fisher, and had charge of the slaves; the witness kept the slaves for a month or so after George Fisher’s death; that Leach, after Fisher’s death, told witness Fisher owed him for services as clerk, and he did not intend to give up the negroes until he was paid; Leach had since gone to Texas.
    James W. Barnett, for plaintiff,
    testified, that he had frequent conversations with Leach and Mary Ann Wallace, the wife of JohnS. Wallace; and in those conversations they admitted, that these slaves were the property of George Fisher, who was then living, but died in October, 1843 ; witness was a physician, and both Leach and Mrs. Wallace, the latter of whom had hired the slaves, told witness to charge his medical bill to George Fisher, to whom the slaves belonged. This was before Fisher’s death. The slaves had been, since the suit was brought, carried from the country.
    Andrew Murdock, for plaintiff, testified, that George Fisher was, in his lifetime, a merchant of good credit; that Leach was his clerk, and had some little property; that the slaves were worth $950; and Leach had removed them from the country and sold them.
    The defendant then read the deposition of Mary Ann Wallace, who testified, that she hired the slaves of Leach in November, 1842; two or three weeks afterwards, Mr. George Fisher and Mr. Leach were at her house; and she heard a conversation between them, on the subject of Fisher’s debt to Leach and the slaves; when Fisher told her that Mr. Leach had the possession of the negroes, and that she must look to him for them, and pay him the hire until he and Leach had a settlement, as he was indebted to Leach. She paid the hire to Leach ever after; that Fisher owed Leach for services as his clerk; that Mr. Leach always claimed the negroes as his; she had hired them of him all the time; and she heard George Fisher say, the negroes belonged to Leach until the debt due him was paid.
    On this proof, the court, at the instance of the defendant, instructed the jury that, “ if they believe from the evidence, that George Fisher, in his lifetime, was indebted to the defendant Leach, and delivered the negroes in the declaration mentioned, to him, Leach, as a pledge or security for the debt thus due, then, unless said debt has been paid either by George Fisher in his lifetime, or by some person for him, the law is for the defendant Leach, and they must so find.”
    The plaintiff excepted; moved afterwards for a new trial, and the motion being overruled, he sued out this writ of error.
    
      Battaille, for plaintiff in error.
    
      W. R. Miles, for defendant in error.
    1. The instruction asked for by the defendant, and granted by the court below, is clearly the law.
    
      2. The verdict of the jury may have been found against the weight of evidence; but it is not against the testimony; for, under the instructions of the court, it is manifest that the finding of the jury was predicated upon the deposition of Mrs. Wallace.
    Courts never interfere with verdicts, when there is sufficient legal testimony to sustain them.
   Mr. Justice ThacheR

delivered the opinion of the court.

Fisher, administrator of Fisher, instituted his action of re-plevin against Leach. There was a trial by jury, with a verdict for Leach, the defendant.

The bills of exceptions set forth all the testimony adduced upon the trial. The evidence, in some particulars, was contradictory; but it was established by at least one witness, that the intestate Fisher, in his lifetime, delivered to Leach the slaves, for whose recovery the action was instituted, to be held by him until their services and labor had remunerated him in the amount in which he was indebted to Leach. Upon this particular, in case of any doubt, it was the province of the jury to determine, and the court will not disturb a verdict, although found contrary to a portion of the evidence, and only when it is clearly against the evidence, or the palpable preponderance of evidence. The consideration of the evidence upon this point, was brought to the view of the jury by the charge of the circuit court. The court instructed the jury, that if they believed from the evidence, that Fisher, in his lifetime, was indebted to Leach, and delivered the negroes in the declaration mentioned to Leach as a pledge or security for the debt thus due, then unless said debt has been paid either by the intestate in his lifetime, or by some person for him, then the law is for Leach, and they must so find.

The decision in this suit at law, will not preclude the administrator from a proceeding in chancery, to ascertain and establish what sum is still due to Leach, and to procure a final adjudication of the matter.

Judgment affirmed.