Abrams v. Suttles

• Citation: 44 N.C. 99
• Parties: N. G. ABRAMS v. WILLIAM SUTTLES.
• Decision Date: 31 December 1852
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina

44 N.C. 99

N. G. ABRAMS

v.WILLIAM SUTTLES.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December Term, 1852.

The mutual promises of parties to a special contract are sufficient legal considerations for either to maintain assumpsit for the breach of it by the other.

The offer by one party to deliver a bond, which the other exprcsses his intention not to accept, though admitting its sufficiency, is a legal tender, without an exhibition of the writing, or proof of its being executed and prepared.

THIS was an action of ASSUMPSIT to recover damages for the breach of a contract for the hire of slaves. On the trial before his Honor, Judge BATTLE, at Henderson, at Fall Term, 1851, to which county the case having, by consent, been removed from the county of Macon, the facts appeared to be as follows:--

About the beginning of the year 1850, the defendant, who resided in Rutherford county, agreed to hire to the plaintiff, who lived in Macon county, four negro slaves to work in the plaintiff's gold mines--the slaves to be taken the 1st of February following, and kept the remainder of the year; for which the plaintiff agreed to pay, monthly, $8 per month for each slave. And to secure the payment thereof, and for the safe keeping and return of the slaves, the plaintiff was to give bond with good and sufficient sureties, residing in the county of Rutherford. H. Abrams, a brother of the plaintiff, testified that on or about the 1st of February, 1850, he, as agent of the plaintiff, went to the defendant for the purpose of getting the negroes and giving the necessary security, and that the defendant refused to let him have them, alleging that he intended to work them in the gold mine himself; and, therefore, the witness left him, without tendering him any bond. The plaintiff then produced a letter from the defendant, written the 27th of the same month, in which he stated he had declined working his hands in the mines, and that the plaintiff might have them, on complying with the terms agreed upon between them. The witness, H. Abrams, then testified that he went again as his brother's agent, in company with one Hinson, to the house of defendant, to get the slaves and give the bond. That he and Hinson, who both resided in Rutherford, offered to be sureties for the plaintiff, and the defendant said they were good; and that Hinson was about to write the bond, when the defendant said they should not have the negroes, unless they gave a bond according to a form which he read to them, and which bound the plaintiff to pay for the slaves absolutely, if they or either of them, should die whilst in plaintiff's employment. The witness and Hinson refused to execute such a bond, and left, without having tendered any bond. Hinson testified substantially to the same facts; and another witness testified to the declaration of the defendant, subsequent to that time, that the reason why he did not let the plaintiff have the negroes was, that they were unwilling to go with him. The defendant then offered testimony impeaching the character of the last witness, and proving that H. Abrams and Hinson would have been insufficient sureties; and that he had subsequently hired his slaves to one Mills at a less price, reserving to himself the privilege of taking them back, should the plaintiff apply for them, and comply with the terms agreed upon.

The defendant's counsel contended that if the plaintiff's testitimony were all taken to be true, he could not recover, because there was no consideration for the contract, and because the plaintiff had failed to prepare and tender such a bond, with good and sufficient sureties residing in the county of Rutherford, as he had agreed to give. His Honor, the presiding Judge, charged the jury, that there was a sufficient consideration for the contract, and that if the plaintiff's testimony was true,...