Eborn v. Chote
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Travis. Tried below before the Hon. A. W. Terrell. Action brought by the appellee against the appellant, and Samuel M. Wright, the payee of the following instrument, on which the suit was based: “Twelve months after date, I promise to pay Samuel M. “Wright, or bearer, the sum of one hundred and twenty dollars, “for the hire of negro boy Jo, aged about fourteen years; and “in case the said boy Jo should run away during the year “eighteen hundred and fifty-seven,…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Travis. Tried below before the Hon. A. W. Terrell. Action brought by the appellee against the appellant, and Samuel M. Wright, the payee of the following instrument, on which the suit was based: “Twelve months after date, I promise to pay Samuel M. “Wright, or bearer, the sum of one hundred and twenty dollars, “for the hire of negro boy Jo, aged about fourteen years; and “in case the said boy Jo should run away during the year “eighteen hundred and fifty-seven, the said Wright is to lose “all his time. “January 1st, 1857. Thomas Eborn.” The note was assigned by Wright to the…
1Opinion of the CourtRoberts, J.
The face of the instrument upon which the suit is founded, presents an absolute, not a conditional obligation, to pay one hundred and twenty dollars for the hire of the negro. One of the ordinary legal incidents of the contract of hiring, is, that if the slave runs away during the term of the hiring, the person who has received the slave on hire, must lose the time thus lost in the labor of the slave. In this particular-case, the parties sought to change the rule, by stipulating that in the event the negro should run away during the time of hiring, the owner, Wright, and not the hirer, Eborn,…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Lunsford v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1876
- Beazley v. DensonTexas Supreme Court · 1874