Whiteman v. Slack , 1 Del. 144 ( 1833 )

Harrington, J.,

stated the issue to the jury, and charged them that having his own act put it out of his power to perform his covenant with the plff., was liable to him. The arrangement entered into on the 24th June, between Slack and Whiteman, was professedly to save Coggins’ credit. The extent of his engagement with Whiteman was to place him in the same condition in relation to these goods on Monday as he then stood in; the causing them to be levied on immediately afterwards at his own suit, was in violation of the agreement. By that levy constable Adair obtained the legal custody of the goods, and Slack had it no longer in his power to deliver them to Whiteman according to his engagement. Constable Whiteman being liable to Crawford & Co., for the amount of their executions, ought to be indemnified by this verdict.

Verdict for the plaintiff @323 94.