
    Columbia, April Term, 1813;
    Samuel Dodds vs. Alexander Wilson.
    Clarice, for the Motion^
    
    Evans, Contra.
    
    The plaintiff in this case, being a man of a weak , -i*, mind, made an agreement with the defendant to serve him a yeai for his food and clothes. His father Save notice to the defendant, that if he kept him he must pay at the rate of five dollars per month for his service. Defendant then desired him to go away hut he refused to go. It was further proved, that, during harvest time, one of defendants neighbours applied to him for plaintiff to work for him, and offered him five dollars per month, but defendant said he could not let him go. At the expiration of ^me Pontiff gave defendant a receipt in full of all demands. On this evidence the judge below gave a decree for plaintiff.
    When there fraud, or vantage*1" maiTof^ * weak ^ must'be h°s con-5y tunable11 to take himseif, should"^ committee appoin-until such appointment, his bind'aCtS •where there is no fraud.
    ^ ouSht to be observed that this suit was instituted in plaintiff’s name by his father.
   Nott, J.

I am of opinion that a non-suit ought to be granted. The plaintiff has had the full benefit of his contract, and appears to have been satisfied with it; and, I am not satisfied that it was an unreasonable one. Few persons perhaps would have the trouble of such a man, for the services of the ablest bodied man in the state. As for defendant’s Saying he could not let him go ; perhaps he was not authorised by contract to let him go : perhaps his services were useful only in some particular kinds of work: he might have been more useful to him about harvest than any other time. In any view of the case he is not entitled to the verdict. If he is unable to take care of himself, let his friends apply to the Court of Equity, and have a committee appointed for him. Until then he must be bound by his contracts, when there is no fraud or undue ad* vantage taken of his situation.

Justices Smith and Colcock concurred*  