Case Name: John D. Brown, Trustee, against Isaac Frazier
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1818-05
Citations: 2 Mill 413
Docket Number: 
Parties: John D. Brown, Trustee, against Isaac Frazier.
Judges: Colcock, JVott, Cheves, Gantt, and Johnson, X concurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 9
Pages: 413–414

Head Matter:
John D. Brown, Trustee, against Isaac Frazier.
A sale was made ?Laeiptsro’taken! warranting, her to ?a^eh™theepu!S1 ness?IuITot*íhoughktédMbsequently, badreg “"«^íeVana
This was an action of covenant on a bill sale, executed the 14th August, 1812, by which the defendant warranted the soündness of the negro girl thereby conveyed to the plaintiff The proof was, that the plaintiff had purchased the girl in November, 1811; had paid half the money at that time, and only taken a receipt for the same. The girl was sound and healthy at ° ** that period, and continued so until some time about the second payment becoming due; plaintiff made the second payment in August, 1812, and took then a bill of sale of the defendant, which was dated at that last mentioned period: by this bill of sale he warranted the Wench sound at that time. The verdict was for the defendant; for the presiding Judge was of opinion that the bill of sale must have a retrospective operation, and extend back to the time of the sale and first payment. The motion is now made for a new trial, because the plaintiff sufficiently proved the unsoundness of the negro at the time of the execution of the bill of sale, and that it was immaterial whether she were unsound or not at any previous time.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Grimke.
I am of opinion that the bill of sale must have a retrospective operation, for otherwise the plaintiff would be made to warrant the soundness of the property not only at the time of sale, but also that she should continue in good health for many months afterwards; that defendant had acted with great degree of good faith in the transaction ; for not only his witnesses proved the soundness of the girl at the time of sale, but their testimony was corroborated by the plaintiff's own witness likewise. For what purpose, then, should a new trial be granted, since the defendant has honestly complied with his bargain, and justice has been done ? I am not, therefore, for disturbing the verdict.
Colcock, JVott, Cheves, Gantt, and Johnson, X concurred.