Case Name: R. J. WEST v. J. W. HALL, and others
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1870-01
Citations: 64 N.C. 43
Docket Number: 
Parties: R. J. WEST v. J. W. HALL, and others.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 64
Pages: 43–44

Head Matter:
R. J. WEST v. J. W. HALL, and others.
A bond given for the price of a slave sold in 1859, is valid, notwithstanding the public events which have happened since ; nor is it affected by the fact that the slave was warranted such fen• life.
(Harrell v. Watson, 63 if. C. E. 454, cited and approved.)
Debt, trieábefore Glouü, J., at Fall Term 1869, of Bowah Court.
The plaintiff declared upon a bond for money, in the ordinary form, dated January 31, 1859. The defendant relied upon the pleas of General issue, and Illegal consideration.
Evidence was offered by the- defendants, to show that the bond was given in payment of the price of a slave, and that the hill of sale received by the defendant, J. W. Hall, contained a warranty that the slave was such for life.
This was excluded by the Court, and the defendant excepted.
Yerdict for the plaintiff; Bule, &c.; Judgment, and Appeal by the defendants.
IÍ. A. Caldwell, for the appellants.
JB. Craige, contra.

Opinion:
Peabsoe, C. J.
There is no error.
It is settled that a contract for the purchase of a slave is not illegal, even when made after the Proclamation of the President, the slave not being under the control of the military forces of the United States: Harrell v. Watson, 63 N. C. R., 454.
In our case the contract, was made in 1859, so the matter is too plain for discussion.
The evidence in regard to the warranty of title, was properly rejected. It did not tend to support any of the pleas. Indeed there was no breach of the warranty. The negro was a " slave for life," and the contract could not, in any way be affected by the event of the late war, and the abolition of the institution of slavery.
Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.
Note. — In another ease at this term, between the same parties, in. which N. F. Hall was the principal defendant, the facts and questions were the same; and the same judgment was rendered.