
    William Brewer, use, etc., vs. Edward West — Writ of Error from Red River County.
    An answer that sets up no defense and presents no issue to the jury should be treated as a nullity by the court. A verdict on such an answer is good for nothing.
    This suit was brought in the name of William Brewer, for the use of Miles Beed, against Edward West, on a note in the following words:
    
      “ Six months after date we, or either of us, promise to pay William Brewer the sum of four hundred dollars, being the balance in full payment of a negro boy named Jack. Witness our hands and seals. Clarksville, 4th October, 1843.
    (Signed) ‘ “Edwaed West, [seal.]
    “Wm. B. Beviee.” [seal.]
    
      The defendant "West alone being sued, answered that be gave the note as described in tbe plaintiff’s petition. He then pro-needs in his answer with a long statement, alleging that Erewer is not the real name of the payee of the note, but that his true name is James Cartel’, and gives him a bad character; but he does not aver that he had sustained any injury by the fraud or duplicity of his vendor, whatever may have been his true name. lie states many other matters which do not appear to have any relevancy to the case, and prays that the contract may be rescinded and the parties put, as near as may be, in the condition they were previous to the contract, and that the money he had paid should be refunded to him and all papers canceled,' but there is no specific offer to return the negro for the purchase money of which the note was given.
    Heed, for whose use the suit was brought, replied and states his willingness to take back the negro and release the defendant from further liability on the note, but avers that the defendant had enjoyed the services of the slave for three years, ■and that his services were worth the two hundred dollars which had been paid.
    At the trial the plaintiff, by his counsel, moved to strikeout the answer of the defendant, which motion was overruled by the court. The case was then put to the jury and the plaintiff offered the note in evidence, which, being objected to, was ruled out by the court. The plaintiff excepted to both decisions, and there being a verdict for the defendant, the case was brought into this court by writ of error.
    
      Mwrtin and Epperson, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Morrill, for defendant in error.
   Mr. Justice Lipscomb,

after stating the facts of the case substantially as they are here stated, delivered the opinion of the court as follows:

The answer not only contains a great deal of impertinent and irrelevant matter, but is further objectionable as not presenting any defense in law, admitting it to be all true, to the action. Unless the defendant was injured or likely to be injured by the fraud of which he complains, he could claim no defense from it, either in law or equity. He does not offer to return the slave after being three years in the exercise of ownership over him. This he should have done to entitle him under any circumstances to relief. His prayer for relief is wholly incompatible with every notion of common justice. To ask that he should have the small proportion of the purchase money that he had paid refunded tp him and his note canceled,, without giving up the property, presents a proposition too iniquitous to be countenanced for a moment by the court. The-answer setting up no defense, presented no issue to the jury,, and ought therefore to have been treated as a nullity by the court, and stricken out if not demurred to. The verdict on such an answer cannot avail the defendant and must be set aside, and the cause remanded with the instruction that the-answer be overruled, and the defendant to have leave to file a. new answer to the plaintiff’s action, if he wish so to do.  