
    No. 26.
    Abel Nelson, plaintiff in error, vs. Lorenzo M. Biggers, defendant.
    [1.] A warranty of a slave “to be healthy,” does not extend to a warranty of soundness of mind, but of the body only.
    Assumpsit, in Muscogee Superior Court. Tried before Judge Alexander, November Term, 1848.
    Suit was commenced in the Superior Court of Muscogee County, on a note made by Lorenzo M. Biggers and Joseph Biggers, for the sum of $908.
    The defendants pleaded that said note was given for certain negroes, and among others, Betty; and that the consideration had partially failed in this, that said negro was imbecile in her mind, so as to be incapable of performing the ordinary duties and labors of a slave ; and farther pleaded, that the said Nelson had, at the time of the purchase, warranted the said negro to be “ healthy.”
    Upon the trial, the following bill of sale was given in evidence : Georgia, Harris County.
    This, January 30th, 1844, received of L. M. Biggers five hundred dollars, for and in consideration of a certain negro woman, named Betty, and her child, Anonicat — the said woman about 27 years old, and the child about seventeen months old; which said negroes I warrant to be slaves and to be healthy, and the right and title or claim from myself and all other persons whatever. In testimony whereof, I hereunto set my hand and seal.
    In presence of— ABEL NELSON, [l. s.]
    Test, James S. Hagines.
    Several questions arose, upon the admissibility of testimony offered, which not being decided by this Court, it is unnecessary to state.
    The Court charged the Jury, “ that by the terms of said bill of sale, that the plaintiff warranted the said negro woman, Betty, to be sound in body and mind; that the term healthy referred as much to the mind as to the body; and that if, from the evidence, they should believe that the said negro Betty, from imbecility of mind, was, as a slave, incapable of performing the ordinary work and labor, that they should deduct from said note, such an amount as they should be satisfied from the proof, she was worth, less than if she had capacity to perform ordinary work and labor.”
    Which charge was excepted to by the plaintiff below, and is now before this Court for review.
    Ingram, for plaintiff in error, cited and commented on the following authorities :
    1 Green. Ev. 337, 352, 336. Doe d. Freeland vs. Bent, 1 T. R. 701. 2 Starkie, 768, 769, 760, note, 764. 2 E. C. L. R. 86. B. N. P. 173. 9 East, 421. 8 T. R. 147. 9 Mass. R. 270. 14 Wend. 195. 4 Rawle, 141. 1 Cow. 250. Poth. on Obl. 181, 182. Rex vs. Scammondon, 3 T. R. 474.
    G. E. Thomas, for defendant, cited :
    5 Ala. R. 521. 2 Starkie Ev. 565, 566. 4 East, 110. 2 Dall. 173. 2 B. & P. 164. 4 Stew. & Porter, 282. 3 McCord, 250. 4 Stewart, 285. 3 Kent, 474.
   By the Court.

Warner, J.

delivering the opinion.

The only question made by the record in this case, for our adjudication, is the construction which shall be given to the word “healthy,” contained in the bill of sale made by the defendant in the Court below. The defendant warrants the negroes to be slaves, and to be “ healthy.” Does the warranty that the negroes are “healthy,” extend to soundness of mind? We think not, when taken in the common acceptation of the term. The term “ healthy” properly applies to the sound condition of the body, and not to the mind. We do not say a person has a healthy mind, when we wish to convey the idea of a sound intellect, nor do we say a person has an unhealthy mind, when we wish to convey the idea of a weak intellect. A general .warranty of soundness, would, in our opinion, extend both to the body and mind of the slave, because the term sound is more comprehensive than the term healthy — hence we say, sound in body and mind, sound-minded man, good sound sense, &c.

The usual term “ sound,” being omitted in this bill of sale, and the term “ healthy” only inserted, we think it may fairly he presumed that it was the intention of the contracting parties, that the warranty should only extend to the body of the slave, and not to her mind. No decided case, directly in point, has been cited at the bar, nor have we been able to find any. For the reasons already given, let the judgment of the Court below be reversed, and a new trial granted.  