Clancy v. Overman

• Decision Date: 31 December 1835
• Citation: 18 N.C. 402
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: JOHN D. CLANCY v. BENJAMIN OVERMAN.

18 N.C. 402

JOHN D. CLANCY

v.BENJAMIN OVERMAN.

SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

DECEMBER TERM, 1835.

1. Where a party incurs an obligation by bis own act, he will be bound to the extent of his engagement, and will not be excused for its non-performance by accident from inevitable necessity, as he would be if the obligation were imposed upon him by law. And for the breach of such voluntary engagement the extent of the injury forms the proper measure of damages, however the performance may have been defeated.

2. If the owner of a slave binds him as apprentice, and covenants that he shall faithfully serve his master, etc., and the master covenants to teach the apprentice a trade, these covenants are mutual and independent, and a breach on one side is no bar to an action for a breach on the other.

3. A covenant to teach an apprentice, or cause him to be taught, a trade, is not an absolute engagement that he shall at all events learn that trade, but is only a covenant for faithful, diligent and skilful instruction.

4. The acts and declarations of a slave-apprentice is evidence on the part of the master in an action by the owner, to show the temper and disposition of the apprentice.

COVENANT, brought upon the following instrument: "This indenture, made this 22 January, 1827, between John D. Clancy, of, etc., of the one part, and Benjamin Overman, of, etc., of the other part: Witnesseth, that the said John D. Clancy doth bind unto the said Benjamin Overman a negro boy, named Essex, for the term of three years, commencing from the date above written, during all which time the said negro boy his master shall faithfully serve, his lawful commands everywhere readily obey; he shall not absent himself at any time from his said master's service, but in all things as a good and faithful servant shall behave towards his said master: And the said John D. Clancy doth further agree to furnish the said negro boy with materials for clothing: And the said Benjamin Overman doth covenant, promise and agree, to and with the said John D. Clancy, that he will teach and instruct, or cause to be taught and instructed, the said negro boy, the art and mystery of the coach-making business; that he will sustain the expense of making his clothes, and that he will provide the said negro boy with sufficient diet and lodging. In witness whereof, etc.

JOHN D. CLANCY, [L. S.]

BENJ. OVERMAN. [L. S.]&QUOT

"Test: JNO. CONRAD.&QUOT

The breach assigned in the plaintiff's declaration was, that the defendant had not taught and instructed, nor caused to be taught and instructed, the slave Essex, mentioned in the covenant, the art and mystery of the coach-making business.

Pleas—Covenants performed and not broken; previous covenants not performed.

Upon the trial at GUILFORD, on the last circuit, before his Honor, Judge Norwood, the plaintiff offered evidence to show that the slave Essex did not understand the coach-making business at the expiration of his term of service with the defendant. The defendant, on his part, offered evidence to show that he made all proper exertions to teach the slave Essex, but that said slave had not capacity enough to learn the coach-making business. He proved further, that the said Essex, during his apprenticeship, frequently, in the absence, and without the knowledge of the defendant, would go to a neighboring store and procure spirits, by which he would sometimes become moderately intoxicated. The defendant offered to prove further, that when he would instruct Essex about his work, and threaten to punish him if he did not exert himself to learn, as soon as he, the defendant, was absent, Essex would declare that he did not care about learning the trade; it was no profit to him; and if he could avoid the lash, it was all he cared for. This evidence of the declarations of Essex was rejected by his Honor. Upon the evidence given, the defendant's counsel insisted that, if the defendant had made every proper exertion, and the slave Essex had not capacity to learn the coach-making business, the plaintiff could not recover. He insisted, also, that the covenants of the plaintiff were precedent and dependent, and that a breach of them on the part of the plaintiff was a valid defense for the defendant. His Honor instructed the jury that the covenants of the plaintiff were not precedent and dependent, but that the covenants on both sides were mutual and independent, and that if there had been a breach thereof by the plaintiff, it was no defense to the defendant. He also charged the jury that the covenant of the defendant was absolute, and that he could not be excused from its performance for want of capacity in the boy Essex to learn the coach-making business; but that the jury might take

that into consideration in estimating the damages, if they should find for the plaintiff. Under this charge a verdict...