
    James Meacham v. Thomas M’Kie.
    
      Tried before Mr. Justice Richardson, at Edgefield — • Fall Term, 1838.
    The defendant, as the administrator of Sol. M’Kie, ha(la sale of his intestate’s effects, among which were a negro man and his wife. The plaintiff purchased ° , ... x m \ t man; and when the woman was onered tor sale, and was on the point of being bid off by a stranger, defendant (who is the plaintiff’s]father-in-1 aw) ur-o-ed him to buy her. He replied that he was not able: WalCa’ the defendant promised if he would buy the negro, that he (defendant) would give him one dollars. The plaintiff accordingly bid off ^ie negro> and gave his note for her according to the sa^e‘ Lie afterwards paid the note, and then brought this action to recover the hundred dol-
    a slight tone-theC0“íeferndañt“ or a slight injury or inconvenience to the wmseíf hTaSy oonsideration to thV promised that If ,‘ouidhuya1 St) w°oiddfgive dollars pkinulf aid buy the negro, it was held that the iigatory.was ob'
    The presiding Judge held and so charged, that there was a sufficient consideration to support the promise, and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover. The jury found accordingly, and the defendant appealed, and now moves for a new trial on the ground of error in the charge of the presiding Judge.
    Bauskett & Jones, for the motion.
   O’Neall, J.

We concur in opinion with the presiding Judge, that there was a sufficient consideration to sustain the defendant’s promise.

Mr. Chitty, in his late work on contracts, (at page 7) speaking of the consideration, says “it is sufficient that a slight benefit be conferred by the plaintiff on the defendant, or a third person; or even if the plaintiff sustains the least injury, inconvenience or detriment ; or subjects himself to any obligation without ben-cfitting the defendant or any other person.” This is I think, a very full and correct statement of what is a sufficient consideration to .support a promise.

The additional bid made by the plaintiff at the request of the defendant, was either a benefit to the defendant or- the estate of his intestate, by increasing the price of the negro the amount of the bid: The plaintiff, it seems, thought he was unable to buy: his purchase in such a situation, was an inconvenience, and his purchase subjected him to an obligation to pay the price which he would not have incurred, had not the defendant made this promise. In all, or any of these points of view, the consideration is sufficient.

The motion is dismissed.

Johnson & Harper, Js. concurred.  