
    JOHN A. PHILLIPS vs. PATRICK MURPHY, ADM'R.
    A deed conveying one’s active services for five years, passes no property in the person making it, but gives a chose in action, and is not against the policy of the law.
    AoxioN of Debt, tried before Peeson, Judge, at" a Special Term (June, 1856,) of Cumberland Superior Court.
    Tbe plaintiff declared on a bond, of which the following is a copy: ’
    “ Six months after date, we, or either of us, promise to pay Charles D. Nixon, administrator of Louis A. Nixon, or order, the sum of one hundred and twenty-five dollars for value received, in hire of a certain negro, Robert Mills, for the term of four years, or so long as Louis A. Nixon was entitled to the services of the said negro.” (Sealed and delivered.)
    The due execution and delivery of the bond and its assignment to the plaintiff, were admitted. The negro, Mills, by an instrument of writing, under seal, had entered into a covenant with Louis A. Nixon, as follows:
    “ Know all men by these presents, that I, Robert Mills, for and in consideration of sixty dollars, to me in hand paid, at and before the sealing and delivery of these presents, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, have given, granted, bargained and sold, and by these presents do give, grant, bargain and sell unto Louis A. Nixon, his executors and assigns, my active services, as a servant, for the full and entire term of five years, and the full and entire control of my-person and labor during that entire time.” (Sealed and delivered.)
    After the execution of the latter instrument, Mills was, against his consent, put into the possession of the intestate, Barksdale, by the plaintiff, as administrator of Louis Nixon, and the bond, declared on, taken as the consideration of such transfer of the said Mills.
    It was contended by the defendant, that this bond was void as being against the policy of the law. It was further contended, that the covenant, conveying his services, was void, and gave the covenantee no right to the services of Mills, as no man could sell himself into a state of slavery; and that the consideration expressed in the face of the bond sued on, was, therefore, void.
    The foregoing facts being submitted to his Honor, as a case agreed, he gave judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed.
    
      O. G. Wright, for the plaintiff.
    
      Shepherd, for the defendant.
   Pearson, J.

There is nothing in the transaction against the policy of the law. The legal effect of the deed executed by Mills to Nixon, was not to make a slave of Mills, or in any way vest in Nixon a title to him as property, but simply to give Nixon a right to his service for five years, upon an ex-ecutory agreement, for a breach whereof an actipn of covenant would lie. The fact, that Mills is a free negro, makes no difference, for a white man may bind himself in the same manner. Indeed, it is common in some portions of the State, for white men to hire themselves during crop time, or for a year. The peculiarity about this contract is, that it is for five years, and is extended, by express words, to the assigns of Nixon. In fact, it is clear from the language used, that the parties supposed that Nixon acquired, under the deed, some right more tangible than a chose in action against a free negro! This supposition, however, does not alter the legal effect of the deed.

The other ground, as to a failure of consideration, was properly abandoned. At law, deeds do not require a consideration, except such as operate under the statute of uses, and a failure of consideration is not noticed, although in some cases relief is given in Equity. We do not intend to intimate that this is one of those cases. There'is no error.

Rer Curiam. Judgment affirmed.  