Dunbar v. Nichols
Dunbar v. Nichols
Opinion of the Court
The plaintiff demands the rescission of the sale of a slave he bought from the defendant, on account of her having been attacked with an incurable disease, at the time of the sale. She being dead since, the defendant pleaded the general issue only.β There was a verdict and judgment for him, and the plaintiff appealed.
The law has provided defendants with the plea of prescription, that they may use it as a shield, to protect themselves against unjust claims, not to use it as a weapon to destroy just rights. The party who uses it in an unrighteous case sins grievously, and the court neither can or ought to supply the want of it, ex officio. When the plea is not made, the presumption is, that the defendant thinks it would not avail him at all, and that he cannot righteously avail himself of it.
The district court, in my opinion, erred in directing the jury to disregard the plaintiff's right, on the ground that it was exercised too late, and I think the judgment ought to be reversed.
Proceeding then to discover what judgment ought to have been given below, I find the evidence contained in two depositions; after the proof of the execution of the bill of sale.
Cobler deposed, that the wench was brought to the defendant's plantation, in the latter part of February, 1818, and was there about two months. About the first of March, the plaintiff came there and bought a negro man, whose wife was desirous of going with him. She was sick in the house, when her husband was bought. The plaintiff afterwards bought her, when she was working in the field; the witness
The bill of sale bears date of April 24th, 1818.
Admitting there cannot be any doubt that the slave died of a disease incurable, in the month of August, 1818; and that the disease existed at the time of sale, whether it might not have yielded to the healing art, if medical aid had been procured in the months of May, June and July, is a question not easy for us to solve. A jury was prayed for below, who, the presumption is, found for the defendant, on the charge of the court, that the prescription availed. We cannot say, however, that they did not attend to the merits of the case, and in such a circumstance, we would not easily distrust their verdict.
I conclude, that the case ought to be rema
Concurring Opinion
I concur in this opinion.
It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the district court be annulled and reversed; and that the cause be remanded, with directions to the judge not to give the part of the charge excepted to.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- DUNBAR v. NICHOLS
- Status
- Published