FOSTER vs. SYKES et al.

FOSTER vs. SYKES et al. 1. A stranger to a contract cannot enforce it by suit. 2. The hirer of a slave is liable to a physician for medical services rendered him, independent of any contract to that effect with the owner. Error to the Circuit Court of Choctaw. Tried before the Hon. John Bragg., This proceeding was commenced before a justice of the peace to recover the amount of a physician’s account for medical services rendered a slave. The facts were these: One Mitchell hired a negro woman and her two children to the defendants, Elijah and Lewis Sykes, for the year 1847, who gave their note for the hire, with the defendant, Bush, as surety. In this note the makers agree to pay the physician’s bills of the slaves for that year. The negroes went into the possession of Elijah Sykes, and during the term he placed them in charge of another person, but without any contract of hiring. This person deposes, that when he took the possession of tho slaves, he told Elijah Sykes that if any of them were taken sick he would send for a physician, and that Sykes replied “well.” The negroes were taken sick, and he sent for the plaintiff; who, it was proved, rendered the services for the value of which this suit is brought. The amount claimed being under twenty dollars, the case was tried by the court without the intervention of a jury, and a judgment rendered for the defendants. A bill of exceptions to this ruling of the court was taken, and the judgment of the court below is here assigned for error. S. E. Catterlin, for plaintiff in error. C. W. Rapier, contra. [MAJORITY — LIGON, J.] LIGON, J. From all that appears in this record, the defendant Bush is clearly not liable to the plaintiff in this action. There is no privity whatever between them. It is true, he is tho surety of Elijah and Lewis Sykes on their note to Mitchell for the hire of the slaves, in which, among other things, it is stipulated that they shall pay the physician’s bill for the slaves, if it should be necessary to employ one. With this contract the plaintiff has no connection, and can take no benefit under it. It requires no citation of authorities to establish the proposition, that a stranger to a contract will not be allowed to enforce its terms by suit. The case, however, is far different with the other defendants. They are the hirers of the slaves, and as such are liable for the physician’s bill, independent of their contract with the owner.—Mecker v. Childress, Ala. R. (Minor’s) 109; Hogan v. Carr et al., 6 Ala. 471. The witness who had possession of the slaves, and who testifies that he had authority to call in a physician in case of necessity, was, from all that appears, the agent of Elijah and Lewis Sykes, and not a hirer from them. He deposes that he employed the plaintiff to attend on the slaves, during the term for which they had been hired by the Messrs. Sykes, and the law implies a promise on their part to pay him a reasonable compensation for his services. Under these circumstances, and as the value of the services was fully proved in the court below, he was entitled to his judgment against them for the sum so proved. Let the judgment be reversed, and the cause remanded.