A vow again ft
the performance
of certain
ads is not
violated by
procuring an
Agent to perform
thofe
ads;
except in a
cafe of mar-
riage, manu-
mijfion, or
divorce,
C H A P . IX.
Of Vows in Buying, Selling, Marriage, and fo forth.
I f a man make a vow, faying “ I will not fe ll, or purchafe, or hire
“ or let out at rent," and he fhould afterwards appoint any perfon his
agent, to buy, or fell, or fo forth, he is not forfworn; becatife the
agent is the contractor, and not his conjiituent, infomuch that all the
Tights of the contrad appertain to the agent, not to his conftituent;
(whence, if the vower himfelf were a party to the contract, he would
be forfworn-;)— and fuch being the cafe, the condition o f violation,
namely, the contrast o f the principal, is non-exiftent, nothing attach-
■ ing'to him, excepting only the cjfeSl of the contract, not the contrast
itfclf. He is, therefore, not forfworn, excepting where he fo intends,
-(as this is injurious to himfelf,)— or where the principal is a perfon of
high rank, and confequently is not accuftomed himfelf to make contracts,
in which cafe he would be forfworn by directing another toad
for him; becaufe a vow is made for the purpofe of reftraining from the
commifllon o f feme cuftomary ad; and it is ufual for fuch a perfon to
tranfad all concerns of purchafe or fale by commifllon; hence
where he gives his orders to another refpeding fuch tranfadions and
the other executes thofe orders, he is forfworn.
If a man make a vow, faying “ I will not marry," or “ divorce
“ my w ife,” or “ liberate my Jlave," and he fhould afterwards com-
miflion another perfon to perform any of thefe ads for him, by a
power of agency, and the faid agent do fo accordingly, the vower is
forfworn; becaufe the agent in fuch concerns ads merely as the negotiator,
t tat or, or in the manner of a meffenger, whence it is that he does not
refer fuch ads to himfelf, but to his employer, to whom the rights
thereof appertain, and not to the agent. Here, however, if the vower
were to declare that his intention in the vow was reftrided to fuch
marriage, divorce, or manumiffion, as might be executed by himfelf
alone, yet his declaration is not to be credited with the. Kdzee: but it
is credited with G o d .— T h e reafon of this fhall be explained in a fub-
fequent cafe.
I f a man make a vow, faying “ I will not beat my Have,” or “ I
H will not kill my fheep,” and he fhould afterwards order another, to
do either of thefe, and the other a d accordingly, the vower is forfworn;
becaufe a mafter has authority to beat his own flave, or to flay
his own fheep, and is therefore entitled to authorize another to do fo;
and the advantage thereof refults to him ; whence he may be faid to
be himfelf the executor o f either of thefe ads, becaufe the rights of
them do not in any refped appertain to the perfon fo ordered.— But i f
the vower fhould explain that his intention was to reftrain himfelf from
the performance of fuch ads as executed by himfelf, his declaration is
to be admitted by the Kdzee: contrary to the preceding cafe of divorce,
&c. where the declaration is not credited by the Kdzee. T h e
reafon of this difference is that divorce merely fignifies a fpeech which
goes to the repudiation of a wife ; and a commiflion to effed divorce
refembles fuch a fpeech; as the vow therefore extends to both of thefe,
where the vower’ s intention was that he would not pronounce -a divorce
himfelf, he muff have intended a particular reftraint only, from
a thing which was general in its application, [his vow,] and hence his
declaration, although it be admitted with G o d , is not to be credited by
the Kdzee, as it contradids appearances:— but the beating of the flave,
or the flaying of the fheep, on the other hand, are perceptible ads,
vifible in their effeds, and are immediately referable to the diredor of
them in the way of an efficient caufe, (fince he is the caufe of the
beating or flaying,) and fuch being the cafe, where he intended, by
Von, I. A a a a ^is
or any aft,
the rights of
which folely
appertain to
the vower:)