
    WASHINGTON COUNTY.
    September Term, 1793.
    Stephen Parr v. David Jones.
    THE declaration stated, that in consideration of two books and silver spurs sold to Jones by Parr, Jones promised to give to Parr a trait or land on Grave creek flats, then in the possession of one Tomlinson, but the property of Jones, and to pay Parr for all improvements, which he should make on Jones’s land; that Parr improved four years, made houses, gardens, meadows, fences, &c. and that Jones did not furnish the trait of land, nor pay for the improvements made, though requested.
    
      
      Brackenridge opened the case for the defendant.
    The Indians at the treaty of fort Stanwix ceded land to Pennsylvania between the Ohio, the Kanawa, and Laurelhill, within which they had previously granted large trails to several persons, as to George Croghan, and to the Indiana company, to recompence certain damage done to their property, or to Baynton, Wharton, and Morgan, the principal sufferers, for the use of themselves and the others. This grant not being efficient till confirmed by the crown, they went to England, to have it confirmed ; but the war breaking out, nothing was accomplished. In 1772, Jones had been employed by the Indiana company, as an enterprising man, and a clergyman, to endeavour to form a settlement on their lands, and for this service he was to have an equivalent. One Davis, a young clergyman, came with Jones for this purpose; but dying by the way, he left it in charge on Jones, to provide for Parr, his brother in law, (whom Jones had never seen) a settlement in the Indiana grant, with himself and other settlers. Margaret Davis, sister and executrix of Davis, the clergyman, gave Jones, as a memorial of her brother’s respect for him, Doddridge’s translation of the New-Testament, in two volumes, and a pair of silver plated spurs.
    
      Ante p. 9.
    It was proved, that in 1772, Jones, having laid out lots of 320 acres each, for the settlers, and, among the rest, one to Parr, Tomlinson opposed the settlement.—Whereupon Jones told Parr, that, till he could get possession of his own lot, he might occupy and improve a trail of land, which Jones had, and now holds, under another right since acquired, by patent from the state of Virginia. Parr went on this land, built a small liable, and cleared about seven acres, of which one and a half was meadow ground. Jones was to pay Parr for the improvements he made, but the cleared land was never measured, nor any demand made of the compensation—Parr knew the situation in which Jones acted, and the state of the title to the land, to be as stated by Mr. Brackenridge. There was evidence, that the books and spurs were given as a present; and, though this was slightly impeached, yet no evidence was given, that they were a consideration for selling or procuring a tract of land.
   President.

There are two promises laid in the declaration:

1. To furnish Parr with a tract of land on Grave-creek;

2. To pay for improvements on Jones's tract, on which Parr, till he could get possession of his own, was permitted or desired to settle. For a breach of either or both of these promises, and of these only, damages may be given.

It appears, Parr understood the views and authority of Jones, and there is no appearance of deception. Parr knew the title under which Jones promised him the land, and knew, that, if that title failed, Jones had no other.—Jones was but an agent. The consideration which he received from his employers, makes him answerable to them for his conduct, but does not make him liable to others as a principal.

1. Shall Parr have damages then, for not getting a title to the land? Not from Jones, for he was but an agent; nor from any body, for the title has failed, from a cause within the view of all the parties, and there is no absolute warranty.

2. Shall he have Jones's tract? It was not in the view of Parr to have this. If it had been, before he could receive Jones's tract, or damages instead of it, he must pay the purchase money; and Jones offers it on a reasonable compensation.

3. Shall he have the value of his labour? He ought first to have ascertained the quantity of land which he cleared, and have given notice of it to Jones, and demanded the price.

By consent there was a verdict for 7l. without costs.  