said, itsemed to him the answer should have stated the sums advanced ; that the court might judge from thence whether the considetation were adiqnate or unconscionable; and he refused to dissolve the injunction. The authorities cited for the complainant, were 2 C. Digest, Chancery 4. D. 3, 4 D. 4, 4 D. 5, 4 D. 7, 4 D. 10. 4 edition, page 665, 666, 668, 669.
Tooley's executors v. Jasper's administrators, 3 N.C. 383, 2 Hayw. 383 (1806)
Jan. 1806
·
North Carolina Superior Court
3 N.C. 383, 2 Hayw. 383
Tooley's executors vs. Jasper's administrators.
TOOLY sued his father in law J. Tooly, for certain Negroes alledged to have been given by the defendant, to his daughter, the plain.-ffT wife, and afterwards detained by the father. "Whilst this sun. depended, Jtsper entered into a written agreement to pay ail the c.^ts of n, should it prove Unsuccess ul s and Tooly, the plaintiff at law, gave a bond in the penal sum of jT.óOO, with condition to deliyer to him one half of the Negroes recovered, should a recovery be effected. The Negroes were recovered, and the half of them were estimated at upwards of ■£.700. Jasper’s administrators brought an action of covenant on the condi ion of the bond j which action, by the opinion of Judge Taylor, was held to be miintainable, notwithstanding ah objection taken thereto, that covenant would not lie on the condition of a bond. Si consequence of this opinion, the cause remained on the docket, and went to trial at an after terns — and the jury assessed danages for the value of one half oí the Ne-groes as before stated. W.iereupon, the executors of Tooly filed this bill in equity, stating that the said Jasper had netbrea at any expence ; that be had given no consideration, as:d that he had not given an adequate consideration; that the bargain was unconscionable, and that it was founded in maintenance and champerty. The answer stated, that he liad expended k; ge *384sums of money, but did not particularise any. After a lengthy argumenten both sides,