Case ID: nc_25/html/0453-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Daniel, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MARTIN WOOLARD vs. JAMES R. GRIST.
    June 1843
    A bond, taken by one who is overseer of a road, from a person bound to work on the road, the consideration of which is for work on the road which done by the overseer but which the obligor was bound to do, is not void on account of the consideration.
    Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Beaufort County, at Spring Term, 1843, his Honor Judge Baily presiding.
    This was an action of debt on a bond, commenced by warrant before a magistrate and carried by successive appeals to the Superior Court. The execution of the bond was admitted. The defence relied on was, that the consideration of the bond was illegal, as being against public policy. It was admitted that the plaintiff was overseer of a road in the ¡said county, appointed at Term of the County Court, and that the defendant was liable to work on the said road. A witness for the defendant proved that he, at the request of the plaintiff and in the presence of both parties, wrote the bond — that tho plaintiff then said that it was taken for work done by him for the defendant, as a hand on a road oí which the plaintiff' was overseer. Another witness for the defendant proved that he was a constable in that county — that the plaintiff put the bond declared on in his hands for collection, and he, the plaintiff, then said, that the defendant contracted with him to do work on the road to the amount of sixty dollars, and that he (the plaintiff') had done the work by hiring hands and his own labor to that amount, and that the defendant had given the bond for that labor. The court was of opinion and so charged the jury, that the law was in favor of the plaintiff. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, and, judgment being rendered pursuant thereto, the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.
    No counsel appeared for either party in this court.
   Daniel, J.

The defence to the bond relied on at the trial was, that the consideration of it was illegal, as being against public policy.., There is no statute, prohibiting the taking of such a bond ; and we are unacquainted with any rule of the common law, which would make the bond void as being against public policy. It seems to ns that the bond is good in law, and the judgment must be affirmed.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.