*Laurens.*

Heard by Chancellor Thompson.

#### John Gray and M'Clannahan, *vs.*Doctor Samuel Todd.

case lyijj,.

A man contracting to purchase cotton and to allow the Charleston price for it,' on its being delivered at Granby, deducting- the freight to Charleston, shall be bound to pay what was the Charleston price, at the time of such delivery to his agent at Granby; though it afterwards was greatly diminished in value by the embargo.

The petition states, that the defendant contracted with the petitioners for a parcel of cotton, and promised to give them the Charleston price, deducting the expence of sending the cotton from Granby to Charleston. That in pursuance of the said contract, in July 180.7, they carried and delivered the cotton to Finley Holmes, of Columbia, agreeably to the directions of the defendant. Finley Holmes directed the *400same to Nicholas Hane, of Granby, to be sent by the, first boat to Charleston, for the defendant.

*399FEB’Y. 1813.

*400That in the beginning of August 1807-, Mr. Hane shipped the said cotton, together with other bales, which the petitioners took down for Mrs. Hughs, on board of a boat for Charleston, on account of' the defendant. That cotton at that time was selling in Charleston from 20 to 22 dollars per hundred, and continued at that price for a considerable time after-wards.

That placing confidence in the integrity of the defen* dant, they did not have the cotton weighed in Granby, ao as to obtain a receipt as to the weight of the cotton, but took a receipt for the bales, which they delivered to the defendant. That the defendant was in ft short time to go to Charleston, and promised on his return to furnish them with the weight and sales of the cotton, and to pa/ to them the amount thereof. That he did go to town, and on his return informed them, the cotton was not sold, as it had not arrived in town : — »■ That it remained in this situation until after the embargo was laid, and they again called on the defendant, who then informed them, that the cotton did not arrive in town until after the embargo was laid, that it was much' damaged and could not be sold.

That in the spring of 1808, one of the petitioners, Samuel M'Clannahan, having business in Charleston and going there, requested the defendant to give him an order on his merchant for the cotton, that he might sell it. That the defendant did write to his merchant, Gil-laspie, and on the delivery of the letter, lie was informed, that the cotton had been shipped to Boston some tima before, by the direction of the defendant, so that ho could not get the cotton.

The petition prays a discovery of the weight of thé cotton and price, and that the defendant may be coffin pelied to account with the petitioners for the same, and to pay over to them, what upon such account shall &jo-pear justly due to them'.

*401To this petition an answer was put in — and the ■defendant albo filed a cross bill or petition, which the 'present. com pi ainants answered.

The facts stated in the petition set forth above, 'were substantially admitted or established.

It came to a hearing before chancellor Thompson, who delivered the following decree:

It is a principle in law, that if a person, undertaking to do a tiling for another, without reward, shall use common care, or exercise such caution, as a prudent man would of his own property, he shall be exonerated, for any accidents which may arise. In this case it docs not appear that the defendant was to bo any tiling bene-fitted by the sale of the cotton : — He was to allow the petitioners the Charleston price, deducting carriage from *Granby;*and whether high or low, all parties are bound by it. It is therefore the opinion of the court, that the report of the commissioner in this case, is erroneous, and that the price of the cotton at the time it arrived at the place of destination, should be the criterion by which to regulate this transaction.

It is, therefore, ordered, that the report he set aside so far as relates to the price of the cotton.

From this decree there ivas an appeal, which was heard, and the judges delivered the following judgment•„

In this case the defendant contracted with complainants for a number of bales of cotton, in payment of a debt due the defendant, which were to be delivered to Finley Holmes in Columbia. The defendant was to be allowed the Charleston price for the cotton, deducting the expence of sending it from Granby to Charleston.— The. complainants brought the cotton to Columbia, and applied to Finley Holmes, who accompanied them to Granby, and saw the cotton delivered to N. Hayne, who gave them a receipt for the cotton. On their return home, the defendant was well pleased with what they had done.

The above statement is taken- from the answer of ihe complainants to the cross petition 5 and the answer of the defendant does not contradict it, further than thíífc *402bo states the cotton was to be delivered to. Finley Holmes, which cannot alter the case.

Upon this statement of facts, it appears that the complainants applied iti Columbia to Finley Holmes, the acknowledged agent of the defendant, who took charge of the cotton by accompanying them to Granby, and seeing it delivered to N. Haync. This being the act of the defendant’s agent, must be taken as his own $ and when tfie cotton was delivered in Granby, the said must be considered as complete, and the right of complainants to the Charleston price, deducting freight, accrued.

The consideration ox the sale, which was the payment of a debt, was likewise satisfied, and the defendant was afterwards bound to receive the cotton, and was ah liberty to dispose of if as lie might think fit $ which it" seems he did, by sending it to B >sto.n.

Therefore it is adjudged, that he do take the cotton at the Charleston price, deducting freight, at the timo the cotton was delivered at Granby, and that the decree of the circuit court be reversed, and the defendant pay the costs»

*W.*B. James.

Henb; W, Dksatjssuke,*.

Theodore Gaimuakd,,

Thomas Watibs.