
    Frederick Willinck, vs. Rebecca Davis.
    
      Defendant m Havanna, engaged a passage to Charleston, fof-herseljf and slave, in plaintiff's vessel. Her promise at Ha-vanna, to indemnify plaintiff against the damages he might sustain by bringing the slave into Charleston, in violation of the laws of the United States, would have been void; her promise-, after the seizure of the vessel and slave in Charleston, was nu-dum pactum.
    
    This was an action for money laid oui and expended for the defendant. It appeared that the defendant resided in Havanna, and applied to the plaintiff, the owner of a vessel, for a passage to Charleston. She was in bad health and required the attendance of her negro servant. Some apprehension was entertained, by both plaintiff and defe ndant, that the serva-<t could not legally be brought within the United States, though neither appeared to be certain on the subject; and after some negotiation^, the plaintiff agreed to bring her and her servant, neither of them intending to infringe the laws of the Union. On their arrival in Charleston, the vessel and negro were both seized under the, ■act of congress, and both the plaintiff and defendant were by the-District Attorney, held liable for the penalty. They joined in a petition to the government, setting forth the facts and praying" are-delivery7 of the property and remission oí the penally. The ■ •government ordered the property to be released on the payment of the costs; and these costs and other expenses incurred came to-about $365 f 9 cents, which were paid by the plaintiff. It was not proved that the defendant had promised-to pay these expenses before she left Havanna; but after the vessel was seized in Charleston; and even this did not appear to have been said to the plaintiff. It was proved that she had joined in the petition.
    The plaintiff contended that he was entitled to recover the wh -Ie amount from her. The (ourt directed the jury that her promise was nudum pactum, and that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover; and on this charge the jury found for the defendant. The plaintiff now moved for a new trial, on the grounds:
    1st. That the principle, that a promise to indemnify against the violation of a law is void, did not apply to this case. There was no intention to violate any law, and no law was in fact violated.
    2d. That the promise of the defendant to pay all the expenses was fully proved, was good in law, as given on a good-consideration and was obligatory on the defendants.
    3d. Because there was evidence before the court that services had been rendered to the defendant and money expended on her account by the plaintiff, for which he was by law entitled to be reimbursed.
   The opinion of the court was delivered hy

Mr. Justice Richardson.

■ The evidence of the promise to reimburse the plaintiff’ the ■damages he might sustain came from Mr. John White, who stated that after the vessel had been seized in Charleston, the defendant said she would pay all damages; But even this did not appear to have been said to the plaintiff, and Mr. White •further stated that he understood that at Havanna they had no doubt that the negro might be brought to Charleston. Whether then the defendant had ever made any promise to-answer for the damages at any time was questionable. If made at Havanna, for bringing a slave into the United States, but which did not appear, it would have been a promise to indemnify the plaintiff for violating the laws of the United States, which would have been void as against sound policy; if made at Charleston after the seizure of the vessel, of which there was but little evidence, it was a gratuitous undertaking without any consideration. The defendant took a passage for herself and slave from Havanna, upon the usual terms. Both vessel and cargo became liable to seizure and were seized, each party ran a separate and-distinct risk, the defendant that of the loss of her slave, &c. and the plaintiff that of the loss of his vessel fee. and a promise by either to indemnify the other was without consideration and therefore void

King, for motion.

Crafis &f JEcIchard, contra.

The motion is unanimously dismissed.

JYott, Gant, John» son Sf Huger, Justices, concurred.  