Woodfin v. Sluder
| Decision Date | 31 January 1867 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | N W. WOODFIN and T. W. PATTON, Ex'rs v. ERWIN SLUDER. |
The provisions of the ordinance of October, 1865, in regard to the value of certain executory contracts “solvable in money,” do not conflict with the Constitution of the United States.
Where a bond for money does not profess to set forth the other terms of the contract in the course of which it was given, parol evidence is competent to establish those others: therefore,
Where proclamation was made at a hiring by executors in January, 1865, that such money would be received as would pay the debts of the estate, reference being made specially to a bank debt, held that, although no allusion to this was contained in the bonds given for such hires, it was competent for the obligors to show the proclamation, and also the market value of the notes of the bank.
A bond given in January, 1865, for the hire of slaves during that year, is subject to no deduction on account of Emancipation.
( Daughtry v. Boothe, 4 Jon., 87; Twidy v. Sanderson, 9 Ire., 5; Manning v. Jones, Bus., 368, cited and approved.)
DEBT, tried before Shipp, J., at Fall Term, 1866, of the Superior Court of BUNCOMBE.
The bond upon which the suit was brought was for $2,000, dated 2d January, 1865, with condition reciting the hire of two slaves until the 25th of December, 1865, for the sum of “two hundred dollars,” &c, and concluding as usual. Upon the trial below it was agreed that the slaves remained in the service of the defendant until the Federal troops reached Asheville, about the 25th day of April, 1865, when they went off with, or under the influence of those troops; also, that it was proclaimed by the plaintiffs at the hiring that such money would be required as would pay the debts against the estate, and that none other would be required; and in this connexion a large debt to the Bank of Cape Fear at Asheville was referred to, and perhaps other debts; it was also agreed that the notes of that bank could, at the time of the trial, be purchased at 25 cents in the dollar.
The parties submitted to his Honor the question as to the amount that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover, especially, whether they were entitled to recover for the entire year, or only for the time that the slaves served; also, whether defendant could pay in such funds as would pay the bank debt as above.
His Honor gave judgment, to be discharged by the payment of fifty dollars in specie, &c. From this judgment both parties appealed.
Boyden & Bailey, for the plaintiffs .
1. “Dollar” means the representative of 100 cents; Bouvier, and Webster, title Dollar. Such must be taken to be the meaning of that word in this bond, a meaning not to be varied by parol.
2. The ordinance of the 18th of October, 1865, so far as it affects this fundamental law of written contracts, is in direct conflict with the Federal Constitution. See Federalist, No. 44, Elliott's Debates passim; Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat., 122; Green v. Biddle, 8 Wheat., 1; Baltimore &c., v. Nesbit, 10 How., 395; Curran v. Arkansas, 15 How., 304; Hicks v. Hotchkiss, 7 Johns. Ch., 297; Commercial Bank v. Chambers, 8 Sm. & M., 9; Smith v. Morse, 2 Cal., 524; Quackenbush v. Darks, 1 Denio, 128, S. C., 1 Comst., 129; Planter's Bank v. Sharp, 6 How., 301; Golden v. Prince, 3 Wash., C. C., 314; Bruce v. Schuyler, 4 Gilm., 221; McMillan v. McNeil, 4 Wheat., 209; 1 Kent Lect., 19; 2 Pars. Con., 509; Barnes v. Barnes, 8 Jon., 366.
No counsel for the defendant.
If A hire a slave to B for a year, B during the year is the owner of the slave. And if the slave die during the year, A loses his general property and B loses his special property, i. e., A loses the slave and B loses the hire. The emancipation of slaves during the year was their artificial death as slaves, and operated as would their natural death; therefore the defendant is liable for the hire during the whole of the year.
The bond upon its face is for $200. But it is stated in the case agreed that it was proclaimed at the hiring, as the terms thereof, that such money would be taken as would pay the debts of the estate; and special reference was made to a debt due the bank, which could be paid in its own notes, and that they were worth twenty-five cents in the dollar. If, therefore, we can look behind the bond to see what the contract was, it would seem that justice would be arrived at by a judgment for one-fourth of the amount of the bond.
The question then is, can we look for the agreement of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas v. Carteret County, (No. 180.)
...111 N. C. 427, 16 S. E. 408, which, in its turn, cities Kerchner v. McRae, 80 N. C. 219; Braswell v. Pope, 82 N. C. 57; Woodfln v. Sluder, 61 N. C. 200. The learned reporter thus headnotes the case of Penniman v. Alexander, supra: "The maker of a promissory note, or other similar instrument......
-
Thomas v. Carteret County
... ... 427, 16 S.E. 408, ... which, in its turn, cities Kerchner v. McRae, 80 ... N.C. 219; Braswell v. Pope, 82 N.C. 57; Woodfin ... v. Sluder, 61 N.C. 200. The learned reporter thus ... headnotes the case of Penniman v. Alexander, supra: ... "The ... ...
-
Everett v. Marston
...Minn. 312; Fruit Co. v. Galeabashi, 111 F. 125; Mariner v. Rogers, 26 Ga. 220; Doughtry v. Boothe, 94 N. C. (4 Jones' Law) 87; Woodfair v. Sluden, 61 N.C. 200; v. Wood, 133 Ind. 221; Ins. Co. v. Neiberger, 74 Mo. 172; Van Ravenswaay v. Ins. Co., 89 Mo.App. 77; Broughton v. Null, 50 Mo.App. ......
-
Evans v. Freeman
...so many dollars. In support of the proposition, as thus stated, we may refer specially to the comparatively recent decisions in Woodfin v. Sluder, 61 N. C. 200; Kerchner v. McRae, 80 N. C. 219; Braswell v. Pope, 82 N. C. 57, and Penniman v. Alexander, 111 N. C. 427, 16 S. E. 408 (reaffirmed......