The Court,
upon the same ground as in the preceding, case, were clearly of opinion that a factor could not give the goods of his principal in payment of his own debts. T'hat the sale of the factor raised a contract between the' original owner and the purchaser $ and that nothing but actualpayment, either to the factor or principal, would discharge such contract.
The jury returned a verdict for the defendant; and on motion for a new trial, made on the adjournment day following, it was ordered without argument.
The cause came on to be tried, a second time, in the succeeding May term, before a special jury, consisting of merchants and planters, when, after remaining all night in the jury-room, they returned into court, next morning, equally divided in opinion, viz. the planters for the plaintiff, and the merchants for the defendant. And as both parties ex pressed their fixed determination to adhere to their opinions, they were, by consent of the parties to the suit, dismissed.