
    
      DEARMOND vs. CURTIS.
    
    Where plaintiff claims slaves sold to her late hus"band by defendant, a bond in which the deceased had bound himself to pay two thousand dollars, or convey the slaves to another person than the defendant, and to whom the bond is not assigned, the court properly refused to permit him to give it in evidence.
    Appeal from the court of the third district, the judge of the fourth presiding.
    The petition stated that the husband of the plaintiff, during his lifetime, to wit, on the 4th of April, 1823, purchased from the defendant the following named slaves: Phebe, Hannah, and Will, which he retained in peaceable possession until his death, and that the plaintiff was then wrongfully dispossessed of them by the defendant.
    The answer contained a general denial, and an allegation that the husband of plaintiff, on the 15th of May, 1823, executed a bond by which he bound himself to pay to Eunice Curtis,(wife of the defendant) two thousand dollars, or to make to her complete and perfect titles to the slaves now sued for.
    The answer concluded with a prayer that the slaves may be decreed to be the property of defendant’s wife, and that she be made party to the suit.
    
      She was made a party, and afterwards, on motion of the defendant, judgment of nonsuit was rendered asrainst her.
    The plaintiff introduced in evidence the act of sale from the defendant to her husband Dear-mond.
    The defendant offered in evidence the bond which Dearmond had'executed to his wife, conditioned to pay her two thousand dollars, or convey her the slaves. To the introduction of this bond the plaintiff objected, which objection was sustained' by the court. The defendant took his bill of exceptions, and after final judgment, appealed.
    Turner, for the defendant and appellant,
    urged the following points for a reversal of the judgment.
    1. The cause was incorrectly tried between the plaintiff and defendant. The intervening party should have been heard.
    2. The court erred in rejecting the bond offered in evidence by defendant.
    3. The motion for a new trial was improperly overruled.
   Porter J.

delivered the opinion of the court. The petitioner, in her own right, and as tutrix to her minor children, claims possession of certain slaves, which she alleges the defendant has wrongfully taken from her. She also claims title to the property in virtue of a sale made to her deceased husband by the defendant.

The answer contains a general denial, and an allegation that Bearmond, in his life time, had executed a bond by which he bound himself to pay the defendant’s wife two thousand dollars, or convey to her the slaves now sued for. The answer concludes with a prayer, that the property might be decreed to be that of the wife, and that, if necessary, she should be made a party to the suit.

She was made a party, and put in her claim to the slaves. On motion of the defendant, however, judgment of nonsuit was rendered against her, and as she has not appealed,' the correctness or legality of that proceeding cannot be examined here.

The cause has been twice submitted to a jury in the inferior court, and each time there was a verdictfor the plaintiffs. The only matter for our consideration is the question presented by a bill of exceptions.

where a plaintiff claims slaves sold to her late husband, a bond in which thede-ceased had bound himself to pay two thousand fhe siavesuTan-the6r ^defendant" bond^is^not1 as! properíythref¡Led to permit it to be given in evidence

After the claim on the part of the wife of defendant had been dismissed, ands on the last trial, the defendant offered in evidence the deceased had made to pay two thousand dollars, or convey the slaves . . . . , to the person therein named, 1 his evidence , . . „ , . - , , the plaintiff objected to, and the court sus- . . tamed their objection.

We think the court did not err, There is no.thing which connects the wife’s right to the money mentioned in that bond, with the husband’s claim to the slaves. There is no . u , , 1 • assignment oi it to him. And it there were, and had the proof been received, it is not seen how it could affect the question of title. It rather strengthens the claim of the petitioners by showing a title in them.

On the merits, we do not find any thing on record, which would authorize us to interfere with the verdicts of two juries.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment of the district court be affirmed, with costs.  