Case Name: Samuel Guy v. William McLean
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1826-12
Citations: 1 Dev. 46
Docket Number: 
Parties: Samuel Guy v. William McLean.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 12
Pages: 46–52

Head Matter:
Samuel Guy v. William McLean.
From Iredell.
The consideration of a bond can be impeached, at law, only upon the ground that it is against an express enactment, or against the policy • of the law.
When A gave a bond in discharge of one made by B, evidence that the latter was obtained by fraud, of which A had no notice, is not admissible in an action upon the former.
Debt on a single bond, made by the Defendant to JV*oa/i Partee, and assigned to the Plaintiff after it be came due.
On the trial the Defendant offered to prove, that the bond was given to satisfy three others, made by the Defendant’s brother, James M’Lean to Partee, one of which was fraudulently obtained by Partee, having been executed when James was drunk, and did not know what he was doing, and that this was unknown to the Defendant, when he delivered the bond in suit.
His honor Judge Daniei, rejected the evidence, as not constituting a defence in a court of law. A verdict was rendered for the Plaintiff; a rule for a new trial being discharged, and Judgment entered up according to the verdict, Defendant appealed.

Opinion:
The opinion of a majority of the Court, was delivered by
Hare, Judge.
If a bond is given upon no consideration, or upon an inadequate one, that constitutes no objection in a Court of Law to a recovery upon it. Proof of the fair execution of it precludes any examination into the consideration upon which it was given, unless that consideration was against the policy of the law, as for compounding a felony, (2 Wilson, 344) or against the express provisions of law, as upon a gaming or usurious consideration* Upon these and other like considerations, a recovery up-an a bond may be barred, although the fair execution of it be proved : but proof of fraud or misrepresentation, as to the subject matter of the consideration on which a bond is given, (in case the fair execution of it is estab-lisbed,) is inadmissible in a Court of Law; — in such cases a Court of Equity is the proper tribunal in which to seek redress. (Plow. 309. Pow. on contracts, 332, 340, 1 cha. Rep. 157. 1 E. C. Al. 84, pl. 1. Hard. Rep. 200. 2 Bl. 446.) For these reasons I think the Judge was right in rejecting the evidence in the Superior Court.