The action is well brought, as it is founded on a contraft, in which the Defendant exprefsly ftipu-fetes, that he will receive the flock from, and pav the price to, *506 Jofepb Boggs, or bis order. On general principles of taw, nock contraéis cannot be regarded as negotiable; but a con-tralor may certainly make himfelf liable as if they werefo i and the maxim, modus et conventio vincunt leges, applies forcibly to the cafe;

With refpeft to the alledged inconvenience, that in the pre-fent form of a ¿lion the Defendant is debarred from the benefit of a fet-off, it would be enough to anfwer, that as this is the confequence of his own a<ft and agreement, he has no reafonable caufe of complaint; But it is alfo obvious, that when the contract was aifigned, and the prefent a£tion was inftituted,. there did not exift between him and Boggs any mutual debt, or demand, which could be the fubj e£t of defalcation, upon the principles of the a£i of Affembly.

VeRdict for the Plaintiff,