Case Name: George v. Elliott
Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1808-12-13
Citations: 2 Hen. & M. 5
Docket Number: 
Parties: George v. Elliott.
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 12
Pages: 287–287

Head Matter:
George v. Elliott.
Saturday, December 13, 1808.
Slaves — Contract of Hiring — Death of Slave during Term — Effect. —II a slave who is hired for a year be sick, or run away, the tenant must nevertheless pay the hire: but, if the slave die, without any fault in the tenant, the owner and not the tenant should lose the hire from the death of the slave, unless otherwise agreed upon.
This cause was brought up by an appeal from the county court of Charlotte.
Elliott, in that court, had obtained a judgment on a bond for 201. against George, who thereupon obtained an injunction from the same court; stating in his bill, that on the 9th of January, 1802, he hired of Elliott a negro man, for twelve months, for which he gave the said bond, with security; that in a few days the negro was taken sick, and continued so, until about the 9th day of June, and then died. Upon the coming in of the answer, and several affidavits, the cause was heard, and, finally, the bill dismissed with costs.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The only question in this case, is, whether the plaintiff should be allowed a credit upon his bond, *from the time of the negro's death, to the end of the year, for so much as the hire for that time would amount to.— The court understands the rule to be, where one hires a slave for a year, that if the slave be sick, or run away, the tenant must pay the hire; but if the slave die without any fault in the tenant, the owner, and not the tenant, should lose the hire from the death of the slave, unless otherwise agreed upon. By pursuing this rule, the act of God falls on the owner, on whom it must have fallen if the slave had not been hired; from which time it would be unreasonable to allow the owner hire — Hire ! — for what? — 'for a dead negro I
It would be rigid enough in the case of a special agreement; but, where there is no such agreement, to insist upon the hire, appears to this court unjust in the extreme.-Upon this subject, 1 Ruth. Inst. 250, 251, 253, 1 Fonb. 376, 377, in the notes, Powell on Contracts, 446, 447, 448, may afford the reader some useful instruction. — Upon this view of the case, the appellant should be allowed a credit of 111. 13s. 4d.
The decree of the county court must be reversed with costs. And this court proceeding to make such decree as that court should have made, directs the injunction to be made perpetual, for that sum, with costs, and the bill to be dismissed as to the residue.