Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1860-04-13
Traynor vs.. Johnson.

This case was before us thelast term and was re
manded for new trial. We refer to the opinion
then delivered for statement of the material facts
OF the case, which are not materially changed by
anything in the present record.
After the case was remanded, there was another
trial. and the jury again found for the defendant
From all that appears the record before Us, this
was certainly strange and ineXphcable result.
The Observation-Disclosures the plaintiff, with knowl-
edge of her rights received back the slave into her
possession. intending thereby. deliberately to waive
the technical COnyerson-caunOt, upon this record
be satisfactorily answered in the affirmative, in
judgment. But, if it were TO be conceded that I'M
der our practice this question Is concluded by the
verdict STILL the further questions remains can
the verdict, respect the counts IN case, be sup
ported upon the facts proved! We unhest9tingly
say, that it cannot Upon the latter counts, clear
case for recovery Is made out 1t Is well settled,
III our local Jurisprudence, that between the owner
and hIrer OF slave, there Is personal trust and
confidence repOsed and a contract, implied by law,
which fOrbids the hirer to transfer the possession
or services of the slave to Il third person, without
the owners consent. For violation of this i'm
piled obligation, the owner may, in general main
tain either'tr0ver or case, at his election. The SIM
pie violation of tins implied contract irrespective of
the consequences constitutes, Of itself, sufficient
ground Of action 1t is a conversion, in law, and en-
titles the owner, in action of hOCer, to recover
the value Of the slave; and in action on the case
to damages commensurate with the injury.
In this view the plaintiff had well established right
of action IN cSe to recover some amount of damages
for the mere violation of the implied contract even
if injury had befallen the slave in consequence
thereof, and he had been returned 10 the plaintiff at
the end of the year without diminution Of value.
But, upon the facts of this case, the plaintiff 5
right of recovery cannot be restricted to damages
for the mere breach of the implied obligation not to
Sub-Lire the slave without the owners consent
There axe circumstances of serious aggravatOn in
the case. The defendant substantially inform
ed at the time he hired the slave that the plaintiff
would not allow him to be hired to the Messrs
ment, though higher wages could be obtained from
them than asked from defendant; and not
outstanding this the defendant after retaining the
slave some two months hired HIM to The Messrs
Cowan. for the remaining ten months and for a
sum nearly equal to the amount which, by his
contract, he was to pay the plaintiff for the
entire years services of the slave. And the
slave, instead Of rendering hOuse-serviCe put
to labor out of DOORS exposed to the sun, IN mid
summer; and other exposures incident to a brick |
yard: and when taken i'll with dangerous disease
no physician was called i'll until the nth day after
the attack. This presents ola wilful and ag
gravated violation of the rights of the plaintiff and
of reckless disregard Of duty on the part Of the de-
PENDANT, for which jury would be warranted in /
giving the highest measure of damages and as the
slave was lost to the plaintiff. while in the posses
sion Of the sub-hirer the lOwestmcasure Of damages
should be the value of the slave upon which inter !
est, by way Of damages, might be allowed by the .
jury.
The jury were not fully or correctly instructed !
in respect to the plaintiffs right Of recovery on the
counts IN case and the verdict, on these c0yns, is
without the shadow Of evidence to support it.
The judgment will therefore be reversed and the !
case be remanded fora trial upon all the counts
Of the declaration. MCkWNEY. /
\ true copy. Test: c. W. NELSON. Clerk