Case Name: David Caldwell, vs. Isaac Whitaker and Wife
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1812-06
Citations: 4 Des. Eq. 402
Docket Number: 
Parties: David Caldwell, vs. Isaac Whitaker and Wife.
Judges: Heard by Chancellor Waties
Reporter: South Carolina Equity Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 402–404

Head Matter:
Laurens.
Heard by Chancellor Waties
David Caldwell, vs. Isaac Whitaker and Wife.
ttJtün i'sls1;
A verdict at law for a very large sum, greatly beyond the value of the property sued for, and intended to coerce the defendant to del.vcr up the property itself, m order to get rul oi the verdict, shall not be enforced, if the defendant offers to deliver up all the property, except a portion carr-ed off by a tlnrd person without the fault ot the defendant, and to pay the íeal value oí the portion so carried off. The Verdict to stand as a security.
ÍN an action at law, brought by the present defendants against the complainant, for the recovery 'of four negroes, a verdict Was given against the. complainant for ,81,500, under art agreement between the parties, that the verdict should be released on the delivery bf the negroes. It appears that one of the negroes was carried oat of thé State by one Madden, which put it but of the power of the complainant to comply fully with the condition of the verdict. He therefore tendered only three Of the negroes, and offered to pay the value, of the one carried off. The defendants have refused to make this settlement, and llave issnéd their execution for the burn given by the verdict, insisting that the complainant’s inability to comply with the. condition of the verdict, was occasioned by his own fault, for that he had sold the negroes to Madden, and liad assisted him in carrying away one of them.
A great deal of contradictory evidence has been given in this case, and it would be difficult to decide on it, if it were necessary to ascertain the truth of all the facts; but I think this unnecessary. There is not however any ground for the allegation, that the Complainant bad sold the negroes to Madden; this is disproved by the fact, that three of them remained with the complainant and were tendered by him to the defendants. The doubt is. as to the charge, that the complainant had assisted Madden in carrying off one of the negroes. There lias been a good deal of evidence in support of this charge, but contradicted, as it has been, it does not appear sufficient to establish the fact. And if it were sufficient, it could only furnish a good ground for punishing the complainant, by making him pay more than the value of the ne-groes taken away, as an indemnity for the' injury. I think thé case must be decided on a ground which does not depend on any doubtful fact; and this is the nature of the verdict. It was never intended that the amount of this should be the measure of the damages. It would have been a most outrageous valuation for a woman and three children. It was evidently only in nature of a penalty to secure the fulfilment of another object; which was, that the complainant should restore the negroes ibi* which the defendants had sued.
JUNE, 1812.
DECREE?
if indeed it had been stipulated between the parties»that the amount of the verdict should be the damages which the complainant should pay as an indemnity to the defendant’s for his failure to restore the negroes, this court could not relieve against such stipulated damages. There* are many cases to this effect; but there is no evidence that this was the agreement between the parties; nor is there any reason to believe that the, jury intended the verdict as a true assessment of the value of the slaves ; on the contrary, there is the strongest reason to believe that it was only intended to compel the restoration of them ; and viewing it in this light, it cannot be enforced against-the complainant. He must however pay to the defendants three hundred dollars, as an indemnity for not delivering the boy who was carried away by Madden; for this is his own assessment of the damage.
It is therefore ordered and decreed, that the complainant be discharged from the verdict obtained against him by the defendants, on his delivering to them the three slaves, Chloe, Sylvia and Sarah, and paying to them three hundred dollars as an equivalent for the boy Edmund, who has been carried away; unless the said complainant shall recover, and deliver the said boy also to the defendants, on or before the first day of September next. And it is further ordered, that the said verdict do stand in the mean while, as a security for the full per - formance of this decree.
The court gives no costs on either side.
(Signed) Thomas Wattes*"

Opinion:
•There was no appeal from this decree?