Nathan Smith against Jacob Barker.
Where _ the declaration alleged an un-consideration” uf a contract entered into by the plain-ship”and⅞” evidence was <oi a contract to finish a ship partly built, it was held, that the variance was fatal.
THE declaration was as follows: “ That before the 8th , . day ot February, 1806, the plaintiff had entered into a certain contract with the defendant, to build him a ship, which, on said 8th day of February, was building, the same . , 1 ° not being finished; and the defendant, on said 8th day of February, in consideration of the plaintiff’s building said ship, and the sums which would become due to the ..... plaintiff for building said ship pursuant to said contract, *313and in part payment thereof, made, executed and delivered to the plaintiff his certain writing, or note, in the following words, to wit, “ Dollars 500. Whereas Nathan Smith is building a ship for me on the contract, for which I shall have to pay him a considerable amount, when said contract is completed, I hereby agres to pay said Nathan Smith, or order, five hundred dollars, as soon as that amount shall become due per said contract. Jacob Barker';” as per said note, which, without date, was, in fact, executed and delivered at Aew-York, on said 8th day of February, now ready ⅛ court to be shown will fully appear. And the plaintiff says, that he did after-wards complete and finish said ship, according to contract, and said sum of five hundred dollars became due to the plaintiff in the month of May, 1806, v, hen said ship was completed and finished, and to the defendant delivered, and by him received; which sum of five hundred dollars the defendant hath never paid, nor any part thereof, according to the tenor of said writing, but. the same is now justly due. Whereupon the plaintiff says, that by reason of the premises, and by force of said writing, the defendant, on or about the 1st day of May, 1806, after said ship was completed and delivered to the defendant, became justly indebted and liable to pay him said sum of five hundred dollars, and being so liable and indebted, the defendant did afterwards, on said 1st day of May, in consideration thereof, assume upon himself, and to the plaintiff faithfully promise-” &c.
The plea was non assumpsit.
The plaintiff, to make out his case, read in evidence the following contract: “ Men¡-London, 26th of October, 1805. I agree to finish the ship I am now building at. Stonington in about one month, in a workmanlike manner, with patent windlass, flush decks, kc. [particularly specifying the -manner in which the decks, bull, masts, *314&c. were to be marte,3 when I agree to sell her to Jacob Barker at thirty dollars per ton, carpenter’s tonnage, payable one thousand dollars cash in all next month, pay my draft at sixty days for five hundred dollars, one hundred dollars of prime flour in New-York at the market price, two thousand five hundred dollars in six months after the ship is completed, and the other half in merchandise, at the market price, such articles as I may want. If, however, the ship don’t suit Captain G. Barney, the said Barker is to take only one half ol her at the above rates, and these payments to be in proportion.
“ Nathan Smith.
“ Jacob Barker.”
Goddard and Cleaveiand, for the defendant,
insisted, that the contract proved was not the same with that described in the declaration.
First, the consideration is not the same. The declaration states the contract to be for the building of a shift. The consideration of the contract proved is the finishing and selling of a ship to Barker.
Secondly, the declaration states, that the money was due on the 1 st of May. The proof is, that it was not due until November, six months afterwards.
Thirdly, the contract proved says, that the ship, when finished, was to be sold to Barker. But on this point the declaration alleges nothing.
Daggett, in reply,
observed,
First, that the consideration stated in the declaration,, to wit, the building of the shift, was taken from the words *315of the note on which. See. As the note recites the con-skleration, we are correct in taking the description of the contract, which the note has given.
A declaration may he araen-cldl' in -my stage of "the trísá, before the ease is ae-tually com-10 f,K’
Secondly, that the money is proved, as we contend, to have been due, as stated, on the 1st of May. This is a question of fact, which the jury must determine.
Thirdly, that if the declaration is defective for want of more allegations, advantage may be taken of such deficiency by motion in arrest, but it is no variance.
Livingston, J.
It is the opinion of the court, that the consideration alleged is so different from the one .proved, that we cannot let it go to the jury. The consideration alleged is the building of a ship. The consideration proved is the finishing of the ship Eliza, already built in part, and the selling it to the defendant. Every one knows that to build a ship for another is an essentially different thing from finishing one partly built, or selling one finished. This ship was Smith’s, while she was building, till she was finished, anil till she was sold and delivered. Without deciding any other points which have been made, we are of opinion that none of the proof offered with respect to the contract in this case can goto the jury.
«The plaintiff then moved to amend.
This was objected to, on the part of the defendant, on the ground that it was too late.
The Court said, that the plaintiff could amend in any stage of the trial, if the case had not been actually committed to the jury.
*316On the 2fith ed October, 1805, A. agreed to fi-then ¾ partly built, in about and then sell certain^price per ton, payable in a man-uer, and at cd.eS’Oif 'tlie en)°⅛06⅛« pie bis note tor the pay-nient of a as soo" as that b"corneSh<due ou the contract. Held, that tips note hie "only u^ion a strict fulfil. merit ol the contract on the pari of 't; that a fin ishing ami delivery of the ship on the 60s h of April, 1806, was not ment-uudUvlt o release from cfiitions an 'niNuíhme t w ould not give A. a right of action tho note.
The declaration was accordingly amended, by inserting and declaring upon the contract above recited. Then there was inserted a letter from the defendant to the ... dated November 21st, 1805, in which the defendant concludes to take the whole ship, and introduces a “ Captain Waterman as his agent, to superintend the finish-*nS the ship. Then it was averred, that Waterman did superintend the finishing and rigging of the ship; and that the defendant, on the 8th day of February, 1806, *n pursuance of the contract, executed the note on which, &c. The plaintiff then introduced an averment, that 1 he finished the ship, in all respects, as specified; sold her to the defendant, on the 30th of April, 1806; and delivered her with a bill of sale to Waterman, as the aa-ent of the defendant; that Waterman received the n ship, and made an endorsement upon the contract in the following words: “ Received the ship of Captain Nathanr Smith, agreeable to the within contract; and I, as attorney to Jacob Barker, do discharge said Smith 1 . ⅜ from all demands, that satcl Barker has by law or equity, *"or not delivering her before ; as witness my hand, this 30⅛ ciay 0f Jpñi 1806, J
(i D. Waterman, attorney for J. Barker.”'
The plaintiff then averred, that by said writing of the 8th of February, 1806, the defendant assumed, and prom*sed to Pay to the plaintiff, or his order, five hundred dollars, as soon as that amount should become due by said contract; and that on the 30th of April, 1806, said sum was due from the defendant to the plaintiff, by said contract, and by the completion, delivery and sale of said . , Ship,
*317After the declaration* had been thus amended, It was agreed by the counsel, to submit the case to the same jury, who had heard the evidence adduced in the former stage of the trial.
Livingston, J.
in his charge to the jury, said, that the contract now stated in the declaration was, that Smith should finish the ship Eliza in a workmanlike manner, and sell her to Barker in about one month. The defendant had objected, that this contract was not complied with, because the ship was not built in a workmanlike manner. Little proof had been adduced by the defendant to this point; and he considered it as not much insisted on by his counsel. As to the time, it was proved, that the ship was not delivered till after six months had elapsed. Nobody could consider this as the fulfilment of a contract to deliver in about one month. But it was insisted, for the plaintiff, that whatever breach of contract there has been, on his part, all advantage to be derived from it had been waived expressly by the defendant. But this note was to become payable, when the sum of five hundred dollars should become due on the contract. If the contract was not complied with, this note could not have become due. The court were decidedly of opinion, that if Barker had expressly-waived all exceptions arising from want of fulfilment of the contract, by writing under hand and seal, yet this note would never have become due.
The plaintiff thereupon suffered a nonsuit.