Clancy bound his slave Essex as an apprentice to Overman for three years, during which time Overman was to provide Essex with food, lodging and clothing and to teach him the coachmaking business. The plaintiff's bill alleged that during the apprenticeship Overman had failed to instruct Essex in coachmaking. The defendant maintained that he had made every exertion to teach Essex but that Essex had shown no interest in learning, was habitually drunk, and declared that the trade was no profit to him; and if he could avoid the lash, it was all he cared for. The judge instructed the jury that the obligation entered into voluntarily by Overman to teach Essex was absolute and could not be mitigated by any lack of capacity in Essex to learn, but that they might take Essex's behaviour into consideration in assessing any damages they might award Clancy. The court found for Clancy and Overman appealed. The Supreme Court held that the obligation entered into by Overman to teach Essex did not amount to an obligation to ensure that Essex would learn. judgment reversed.
