Hinde v. Pendleton

1788 Va. Ch. Dec. 354
CourtVirginia Chancery Court
DecidedMarch 15, 1799
StatusPublished

This text of 1788 Va. Ch. Dec. 354 (Hinde v. Pendleton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Virginia Chancery Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hinde v. Pendleton, 1788 Va. Ch. Dec. 354 (Va. Super. Ct. 1799).

Opinion

A NEGRO woman slave and her four children had been in possession of the plaintiff and his wife, the parent many years, and the others from their respectivé births, probably believed by the possessors, during the greater part of that time, to be their property.

After the woman slave was discovered to have been, by the father of the plaintiffs wife, who had received her from him, conveyed long before to John Robinson, the testator of the defendents, the five slaves, by direction of one of the defendents, were sold by auction.

The plaintiff, at the time and place appointed for the sale, attended with his wife, who manifested a tender affection for the slaves, and such anxiety to retain them, which was increased by a reciprocal abhorrence in them from a separation, that she seemed resolved to buy them at any price.

The defendents were not at the sale, one of them, suspecting that some people, di posed to favour the plaintiff’s wile, might [355]*355decline bidding against her, instructed the agent who managed the sale not to let them be sold under a reasonable value.

The agent employeth a by-bidder, not being particularly instructed so to do by the defendents ; the slaves are exposed to sale, in lour lots, for tobacco ; the plaintiff is the highest bidder for all ; the sum of the prices bidden is somewhat more than 52000 pounds of tobacco, confessed to be enormous, for payment of which the plaintiff, with a surety, executed a bond.

The defendents, in an action for the tobacco appearing due by the bond, recovered a judgement, to enjoin which the plaintiff commenced this suit, in his bill claming a property in the slaves, by a gift, which he alleged the father of the plaintiffs wife to have made at their intermarriage, or, if that tille could not be maintained, insisting that the conduct of the agent in employing a by-bidder, was so unfair that in equity the obligor ought not to be charged, by the bond, with more than the true value of the slaves, far exceded by the price which was bidden by the plaintiff, and which he was urged to bid by the agents practices upon the solicitude of a distressed woman.

The answer of the defendents to the bill did not admit the gift to the plaintiff, and he did not prove it, nor would the gift, if he had proved it, have been effectual against the prior conveyance to the testator of the defendents.

In the answer the first named defendenc in a dissertation endeavoured to prove the employment of a by-bidder not to be unlawful or exceptionable in general, and stated that, not long before this transaction, the plaintiff, at a public sale, gave 255 pounds for a negro boy thirteen years old, and that other extravagant prices were given about the same time ; adding, he supposed the' just creditors of mr Robinson, for whose benefit the defendent acted, had a right to be avaled of the prevailing temper though it should be thought a pitrenzy.

By the court, 10 day of march, 1791:

The act of by-bidding is a dolus malus. I, the by-bidder, offering a price for the thing proclaimed to be sold, professeth a wish to buy it; which profession is false : for he, not only doth not wish to buy Ihe thing but, wisheth another man to buy it, and teinpteih him to bid more for it. 2, the by-bidder, instead of being one who would be a buyer, as he pretendeth to he, is in truth the seller disguised, lending his own person to the seller, his office is dramatic, no less than the office of an actor in theatrical exhibitions. they both represent others; and the object of both is to deceive, in this latter character however they dif fer thus : they use their art to persuade, one that he is, the other [356]*356that he is not, whom he personateth.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1788 Va. Ch. Dec. 354, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hinde-v-pendleton-vachanct-1799.