Woodman v. . Mooring , 14 N.C. 237 ( 1831 )

Hah,, Judge.

.The question presented in this caséis, whether the judge erred in rejecting the testimony of the plaintiff’s witness who lived with him as a clerk. I think that evidence was properly rejected ; because admitting the facts to be as the plaintiff proposed proving them by that witness, he was not entitled to recover against the present defendant. I do not speak of the effect or relevancy of the evidence in case Pinkit was sued. When the plaintiff purchased the negro boy, or when he was delivered perhaps, according to the testimony the bond was paid in pursuance of the express contract between Pinkit and the plaintiff, and the defendant was discharged from his suretyship; and no contract which the plaintiff and Pinkit could afterwards enter into, could revive it, and make the bond again obligatory upon the defendant. It not only appears thatthebond was discharged by the sale of the negro to the plaintiff, but a balance of the purchase money remained, and was to be applied to Pinkil’s credit in some other way. If the rejected evidence amounts to any thing, it shows an unfair combination between the plaintiff and Pinkit against the defendant. It certainly discloses no merits on the plaintiff’s side to entitle him to recover.

Per, Curiam. — Judgment aeeirmed.