Case Name: Adams vs. Anderson
Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1819-12
Citations: 4 H. & J. 558
Docket Number: 
Parties: Adams vs. Anderson.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the General Court and Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland, form 1800 ... [to 1826]
Volume: 4
Pages: 558–560

Head Matter:
Adams vs. Anderson.
a earned n to 5rato miles distant,; and tosS^toThem^eS ie$? 8price *°han they were worth, standingtiiatthey. by1 a'and6 n e!n the neighborhood: were mtendeef £rn“lives “and whoremoved’diose óut"ofh“the «ate fiTOtó'caj.o/íno6.i°n action brought recovéraidámagéi deceit — /w, that ,he objection that specialvei-iSipro6-She6'dcíhu'íi1 another pels™, tie 'statute'“dof "stunanted: "It tbatk was Reheat part of a* fir
Appeal from Montgomery County Court. This was a sPecial action on the case to recover damages, for fraud, an<^ ra'srePresentat'on’ vvl)ereby the plaintiff, (now appellee,) was induced to sell certain slaves for a Jess price than they were worth. The defendant, (the apPe^allM . pleaded not guilty. At the trial the plaintiff offered evidence to prove, that some time in the spring of 1816, the defendant came to his house, bringing w*^1 him a stranger, (who he afterwards understood was named Nixon,) and the defendant applied to the plaintiff know if he had not a negro woman to sell, stating that he wished to Purebase. The plaintiff then asked the de» fendant if he wanted the woman for his own use, (the defendant being proved to be living at Montgomery court-h°uses and about a mile from the plaintiffs residence,) the defendant replied that he did. Upon seeing a woman, the defendant asked the price, and the plaintiff said §300, wkich the defendant said he thought too high. The plaintiff then said he had another, with a child about six years old, which lie would show him, and would sell for §400. seeing them the defendant asked if he would sell them all three, and what would be his price. The plaintiff replied §700, and upon the defendant’s objecting to the price, the plaintiff said as the defendant would take them for his own use, and the negroes were willing to go with him for that purpose, (the negroes having expressed willingness,) he would sell them lower on that ac‘.count, and would take §675. The defendant then .said that the person present was a friend of his, residing in Washington ciry, and wanted one of them for his own use, and that he would take one, and himself the other, (as he wanted but one,) at that price. That Nixon then offered to give his bond, obliging himself to keep the woman for his own use, and from being temoved from the city of Washington, .where he lived. The plaintiff replied that a bond w as not necessary, but that if the defendant would be responsible, and engage to that effect, he would be satisfied. That he abhorred the practice of selling to slave-dealers, and would not so sell the negroes for any consideration, nor dispose of them except with the understanding that they were to be kept in the neighbourhood. The defendant then declared that he did so engage, and that he would keep the one, and Nixon the others. Upon this the bargain was made, the money paid, and the negroes delivered to the defendant the next morning. The plaintiff then proved that this Nixon was at this time a slave-dealer from South Carolina, where he resided, and was known to the defendant to be so. That upon the delivery of the ne-groes to the defendant, they were all immediately carried off’ out of the state by Nixon, and removed to Carolina. He further proved, that shortly afterwards the defendant acknowledged that he had carried Nixon to the plaintiff, and passed him off on the plaintiff for a friend of his ill Washington, and had induced the plaintiff to sell the said negroes to him, under the understanding that they were to be kept by him and Nixon in the neighbourhood, and boasted of the manner he had managed the affair for Nixon, wdiose agent he was, and from whom he had received §40 for his agency; that when they saw the negroes, Nixon fixed a price on (hem, and told the defendant that he might get them as much lower as he could, and he would allow him the difference. It was further proved by the plaintiff that these negroes, (one of them about 16 and the other 20 years old.) were born and raised in his family, and one of them had a father and mother belonging to him, and then in his service. And the plaintiff further proved, that a few days after the sale he called on the defendant, and reproaching him for his conduct, said he would return the money, and demanded the negroes, which the defendant said the plaintiff might get, but they had been then removed from the city of Washington. That the father and mother of the girl so sold, when they heard she had been carried off, were in great distress and trouble, and for sometime unable to do their usual work in the plaintiff’s service, though they were not confined by sickness. On this evidence the defendant prayed the court to instruct the jury,'that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover. But the Court, [lüdgely, A. J.] refused to give the instruction. The defendant excepted; and the verdict and judgment being against him, he appealed to this court.
The cause was argued before Buchanan, Earle, Johnson, and Dorsey, J. by
Boyle, for the Appellant; and by
Magruder, for the Appellee.

Opinion:
Buchanan, J.
delivered the opinion of the court. It is objected that the agreement in this case is a special verbal promise to answer for the default of another person, and void under the statute of frauds. In the opinion of the court it is clearly,not such an undertaking, but is a palpa» ble cheat and fraud on the part of the appellant, for which the appellee is entitled to damages.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.