Case Name: Samuel Dodds v. Alexander Wilson
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1813-04
Citations: 3 Brev. 389
Docket Number: 
Parties: Samuel Dodds v. Alexander Wilson.
Judges: Smith, and Colcock, Js., concurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 5
Pages: 389–390

Head Matter:
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
APRIL, 1813.
Samuel Dodds v. Alexander Wilson.
When thefe is no frand, or undue advantage taken of a man of weak mind, •he mast be bound by his contracts. If he is unable to take care of himself, his friends should have a committee appointed; but until such appointment, his contracts bind, where there is no fraud.
The plaintiff in this case, being a man of a weak mind, made an agreement with the defendant to serve him a year for his food and clothes. His father gave notice to_ the defendant, that if he kept him, he must pay at the rate of five dollars per month for his ser. vice. Defendant then desired him to go away, bathe refused to go. It was further proved, that during harvest time, one of defendant’s neighbors applied to him, for plaintiff to work for him, and offered him five dollars per month, but defendant said he could not let him go. At the expiration of the time, plaintiff gave defendant a receipt in full of all demands. On this evidence, the judge below gave a decree for plaintiff.
It ought to be observed, that this suit was instituted in plaintiff’s name by his father.
Clarke, for the motion. Evans, contra,

Opinion:
Nott, J.
I am of opinion that a nonsuit ought to be granted. The plaintiff has had the full benefit of his contract, and appears to have been satisfied with it; and, I am not satisfied that it was an unreasonable one. Few persons, perhaps, would have the trou. ble of such a man, for the services of the ablest bodied man in the State. As for defendant's saying he could not let him go, perhaps he was not authorized by contract to let him go ; perhaps his services were useful only in some particular kinds of work; he might have been more useful to him about harvest than at any other time. In any view of the case, he is not entitled to the verdict. If he is unable to take care of himself, Jet his friends apply to the Court of Equity, and have a committee appointed for him. Until then, he must be bound by his contracts, when there is no fraud or undue advantage taken of his situation.
Smith, and Colcock, Js., concurred.