The question, which arose on the trial of this cause, I do not think was the abstract one, whether ju this contest with Jones, Yeargain was bound by tin* estoppel, arising upon the judgment in his suit with Bill. .We are therefore relieved from expressing an opinion upon the effect of the declaration on the face of the warrant, that Yeargain sued for the use of Jones. Possibly that might have so connected Jones with the transaction, as to have bound him by the estoppel, and upon that ground only can Yeargain be bound iii this contest with him j for estoppels must operate mutually, or not at all. Upon the exchange of the horse for the note, Yeargain became bound, (unless there was an express agreement to the contrary, and there appears to have been none,) that the sum called for in the note was due, and Jones was authorised byr the nature of the transaction if necessary, to sue for it in the name of Yeargain. It necessarily followed, that a reduction of the sum called for in the note by way of a set off or otherwise, would be a violation of the guarantee made by Yeargain ; that the whole was due. These were the obligations which the nature of the transaction imposed upon Yeargain, and obligations of a correspondent nature were imposed ori Jones, growing out of the relationship which he assumed to Yeargain ; that as his agent in using his (Yeargain’s') name, he would act fairly on those points, in which he was interested. If. is therefore necessary that we should ascertain that in this warrant, so far as regards the set off, in which Yeargain was certainly interested, Jones acted as a faithful agent, at least to see if it does not appear that he acted otherwise.. A short time after the exchange, a warrant is taken out in the name of Yeargain, to the use of Jones against Hill. The service is acknow-*423Iedged by Hill, they went to trial on tiie same day, and the Justice found a set off to the amount of sixty dollars. The note calls for about ele\on dollars more, including interest, for which ajudgoient was rendered, and HUl paid up that sum, at least he obtained a receipt upon the judgment for it. It does not appear that Fear-gain was at all apprized of the Defendant’s claim to a set off, or that any attempt was made to continue the cause, until he might enable his agent Jones, to resist it. In fact it is quite apparent, that Jones went to trial with his owieconsent, nay, required a trial; for it is well known, that only in cases where there is a friendly understanding between parties, and where the Plaintiff takes an acknowledged service, instead of an arrest by an officer and a holding to bail, the Justice would, without the consent of both parties, proceed to trial on the same day, and especially when one was acting as agent for a principal residing at the distance of one hundred and twenty miles at least, and the Defendant offered evidence so vitally affecting the interest of that principal. The tiling carries upon its face a faithless agency; an agent entirely regardless of his principal’s rights.. But when to this is added that by having the set off established, Jones exchanged an insolvent for a solvent debtor. Hill for Yeargain, if is full proof of the character of the transaction. 1 say an insolvent for a solvent debtor, for it appears that Hill’s solvency was not much relied on ; for Yeargain told Jones, when the exchange was made to push Hill, and probably his tno-ther-m-iaw would pay, if Hill could not; a thing by the way, not much in favor of Yeargain, to extort from the mother-in-law, the debts of her insolvent son-in-law. I think therefore, the Judge had abundant evidence, that the finding of the Justice was not conclusive b-tween these parties, that the judgment was impeached for fraud if that was necessary, and that Yeargain ought to be let into proof, that in point of fact, there was no set off— *424which he was entitled to show before the Justice, but of which his agent Jones, deprived him.
Laying out of this case, the question raised relative to the set off, the only enquiry would be, Whether the Defendant is at all liable to the Plaintiff.— He purchased a horse with Hill’s note, instead of money. The horse, and tiie note, without endorsement, were both delivered, the one for the other; and if this was done with good faith, it would seem that their liabilities extended no farther. This would be unlike the case of a note received on account of a prior debt, as a mean to raise the money due, in discharge of it; if the money was not collected, the debt would still be due, unless it should be otherwise stipulated.
In this case it must have been the understanding of the parties, that the money was due by Hill, and that tiie Plaintiff was at liberty to use the Defendant’s name to collect it. It appears that Hill was warranted, and on the trial before a Justice of the Peace, a set off was allowed him ; it does not appear that there was any fraud in the transaction. The question is, whether the Plaintiff or Defendant must bear tiie loss.
If jHill was entitled to the set off, there can be no doubt that the Defendant should bear the loss j because he impliedly, if not expressly guarantied that Hill owed the money. On the trial, it appears that the Defendant offered to show that Hill in point of fact, was not entitled to a set off. Opposed to this was the judgment rendered by the Justice of the Peace, to which the Defendant was a nominal party. This brings us lo a point of difficulty, to be cleared up only by the circumstances of the case.
It is a circumstance to be kept in view, that whatever the dealings between the Defendant and Hill were, which led to the giving of the note by Hill, they were known to themselves, but not to the Plaintiff,* and the probability is, that admitting that Hill was not entitled to the *425set off, there was some foundation or color for it. This is evident from file fact, that the Justice of the Peace allowed it. It cannot.be presumed, that it was claimed and allowed without a shadow of right. If there was any foundation for it, this was known to the Defendant, and it was his duty to conceal nothing, but to make a full disclosure to the Plaintiff, when he passed the note to him.
It is said that the Plaintiff should have, given the Defendant notice of the trial. This would have been very proper; but the parties live a considerable distance apart. Perhaps the Plaintiff had not time to do so before the trial, after he knew that a set off was claimed.
I am however inclined to think that it would tend to the better understanding of the case, if the Defendant was permitted to give testimony as to the set off. Although the Defendant is a party to the judgment, yet he was not privy to it, when it was obtained. It is possible that he may show such a state of things as will enable the Jury to decide as the relative merits of the parties require. My brethren seem to think without doubt, that a new trial should be granted, and I am willing that the rule should be made absolute.
Per Curiar:. — Judgment reversed.