
    Shenault, vs. Eaton, White, and others.
    
    If the party selling a slave do not know that the slave is laboring under any other disease than such as he discloses, he is not guilty of a fraud.
    A court of equity will not entertain jurisdiction to enjoin the purchase money of a slave where there is a warranty of his soundness, unless there has been a fraud or misrepresentation used by the vendor.
    When the complainant has a clear and adequate remedy at law, equity will not entertain jurisdiction.
    The fact that the vendor resides in another State, and has brought suit for the purchase money in the courts of this State, will not form any ground for equity to take jurisdiction and decree the payment of the purchase money, because of the breach of warranty in the bill of sale.
    The record shows that the complainant Shenault, filed the bill in this case in the circuit court of Fayette county, on the 30th day of August, 1830. .The bill alleges, that Walter Shenault, on the 26th day of December, 1828, purchased of Samuel Spears and-- White, (two of the defendants below) two negro girls, one named Jemima, about fifteen years of age, the other named Lucy, about twelve years of age, for which two negro girls he paid six hundred dollars; two hundred dollars in cash, his own note for one hundred dollars, and transferred a note on William Roupe for three hundred dollars: that Jemima was rated at $350, and Lucy at $250; that at the time of the sale Jemima seemed somewhat indisposed, which caused a refusal upon the part of said She-nauit to make the purchase; that White and Spears represented to the complainant that the indisposition proceeded from cold taken while she was travelling, but that she was free from all disease and impediment, and that they would warrant her and the other negro, and especially Jemima, free from disease of all kinds and sound in body and mind; that this representation induced the complainant to believe the negroes were sound, and he made the purchase; upon which he received a written warranty of the soundness of said negroes in his bill of sale, which was under seal; that said representations and warranty were false and fraudulent, and made to deceive and defraud the complainant; that the negro girl Jemima was mortally diseased and afflicted at the time said representations and warranty were made, and that the said Spears and Eaton knew that she was unsound and mortally diseased at the time they sold her to the complainant; that said negro was of no use, but a trouble and expense to the complainant, and that she died in a few months after said purchase, of a disease and unsoundness with which she was afflicted at the time of the purchase; and that complainant is likely to lose the money paid for said negro; that said Spears and Eaton are citizens of the State of North Carolina, and had the said negro girl under the care of physicians taking medicine for the disease of which she died, before they sold her to said complainant. That a suit had been instituted and judgment recovered in the name of Samuel Spears, one of the defendants, for the use of one Joseph Taylor, a citizen of Hardeman county, in the State of Tennessee, against the complainant, upon said one hundred dollar note, with in-r ’ r . \ terest and costs; that a suit was instituted and judgment recovered for three hundred dollars and interest and costs .upon Roupe’s note, in the name of John Yancey, (one of the endorsers upon said note to the complainant) for the use of said Joseph Taylor; that said Taylor has no interest or claim to the proceeds of said judgment, although sued for in his name, but that they belong to said Spears and White; that if he has, he knew the consideration upon which said notes were given, and that the same had failed; that the negro girl Jemima had died of a disease with which she was afflicted at the time of the purchase, before he became the owner and holder; and prays that the defendants, White, Spears and Taylor be enjoined from collecting the money upon the judgment against'Roupe; and that Roupe be enjoined from paying .over to any person but the complainant, and that the same be decreed to the complainant, and that all proceedings upon the judgment against complainant be perpetually enjoined. The answer of Taylor states that he sold in the year 1828, a tract of land in the State of North Carolina for three thousand dollars to Glasgow; that some time in the year 1829, Glasgow enclosed to him in part payment of the purchase money the note of the complainant for $100, and the note of Roupe for $300, stating that he had procured them from White and Spears for a valuable consideration, which the respondent believed; he denies that he knew at the time he received the notes, upon what consideration they were given; he states that White and Spears have no interest whatever in the judgments mentioned in the complainant’s-bill, but that the same belong entirely to himself, and denies all fraud, and asks a dissolution of the injunctions as to himself. The joint answer of White and Spears admits that they sold the two ne-groes mentioned in the bill to complainant for six hundred dollars; that complainant executed his note twelve months after date for $100, in part payment of the purchase mo" ney; that he paid $200 in cash, and transferred the note of William Roupe for $300 as stated in the bill. They deny that the girl Jemima was rated at $350, but state that she was rated at $300. They deny all knowledge of, or suspicion that Jemima labored under any disease but indisposition produced by cold; state that they made a full and complete disclosure to said complainant of all diseases that said negro was afflicted with in their knowledge; that they had owned the Wo girls for a short time only, having obtained them in exchange for others; that the^-' had never any'reason to believe or suspect that Jemima was diseased, but believed at the time they sold her she was sound and free from disease, and believe so still. — • They admit that they executed to the complainant their bill of sale under seal for said two negroes, Lucy and Je-mima; and that the same contained covenants of soundness and freedom from disease, as stated in the'bill of the complainant. That said notes in the bill mentioned were transferred to one Glasgow for a valuable consideration, upon his part fair, and without any knowledge upon his part or the part of the defendants that the consideration upon which said notes were given to defendants, had failed, nor do they admit that such is the fact; they state that they knew nothing of the disposition that said Glasgow made of the notes, and that they have no interest either legal or equitable in said judgments obtained on them by defendant Taylor. They deny expressly that Jemima died of any disease with which she was afflicted at the time of the sale, and insist that she was sound. They also insist that the complainant has no remedy in equity against them upon the covenants contained in said bill of sale, but that their remedy is in a court of law for a breach of them, if the negro was unsound when sold, and pray the bill to be dismissed and the complainant directed to proceed at law, if said covenants have been broken, which they deny.
    
      The proof shows that on the day the sale of the ne- ' groes was made, the girl Jemima was indisposed; that defendant Spears and White represented that it was the effect of a cold; that Jemima was afflicted with a disease of the liver and womb, which produced her death in two or three months after the purchase; that the disease of which she died could not have caused her death unless it had existed for some months previous to the sale and purchase; that from appearances it must have existed upon her for twelve or eighteen months previous to her death; that she was utterly useless to the complainant, but if sound would have been worth from $375 to $400. There was no proof which showed that defendants Spears and White knew any thing of the girl’s situation, or whether she was diseased or not. There is no proof showing that Taylor had any knowledge of the consideration upon which the notes were given by complainant. The record also shows that the injunction had been dissolved at a term before the final hearing, and the money collected upon the one hundred dollar note, and the three hundred dollar note on Roupe, and paid to defendant Taylor.— The court below decreed, that defendant Taylor should refund the complainant the sum of $100 and interest from 25th December, 1829, the time the note of complainant fell due; that the bill be dismissed as to the three hundred dollar note, and that the complainant should recover of the said defendants, White and Spears, the sum of $200 with interest from the 26th December, 1828, the time the same was paid to defendants by complainant, and that Taylor pay all the costs in the first place and the defendants, White and Spears, pay the same to Taylor. From this decree the defendants prayed an appeal to this court.
    
      Miller and Davis, for the complainant.
    
      R. C. M’Mpin, for defendants.
   Green, J.

delivered the opinion of the court. r

In this case the defendants below, Spears and White, who are residents of North Carolina, sold to the complainant a negro girl, stating that she was not diseased, except a cold she had contracted on the river. They executed to the complainant a bill of sale in which they warranted the girl to be sound. The negro shortly after the purchase became sick, and in a few months died.— The physician who was employed to cure the negro, proves that her disease was of such a character as to lead to the conclusion that she had been diseased some length of time before complainant bought her. The proof in this case does not establish that the defendants knew the negro was laboring under any disease, other than that disclosed by them at the time of the sale. If they did not they were guilty of no fraud in the sale. They used no dishonest means to induce said complainant to purchase. Upon what ground of equity jurisdiction, then, can this court maintain the bill to enjoin the defendants’ judgment at law for the purchase money? The complainant has a plain, adequate, and unembarrassed remedy at law upon his covenant of warranty. A court of law can afford him as ample relief as can be obtained here. All the distinction between the two jurisdictions may be broken down if this bill be entertained; and the trial of causes when the remedy is purely legal, and when there is nothing in the way to embarrass its attainment, will be taken from juries and transferred to chancery. This would be contrary to the settled rules of law. It would impair the “right of trial by jury,” which ought never to be interfered with but in cases where that mode of trial would not afford an adequate remedy.

It is insisted that because the defendants are residents of another State, that is a ground of equity jurisdiction. There is no reason for this distinction. If this were established as a reason why the courts of equity would interpose in favor of a party, eVery circumstance of incon- \ , Í. ,' . ' , c . vemence, however slight, would become a ground ol jurisdiction. A party might in every case select this forum as convenience might dictate, and thereby destroy all distinction between the jurisdiction of courts of law and courts of chancery. Make the most of the argument, it is only a matter of convenience. The conclusion from what has been said, is, that chancery in this case had no jurisdiction to afford the relief prayed for, and therefore the decree must be reversed, and the bill dismissed with costs.

Bill dismissed.  