¶1 There is no ground whatever for the action. If the property were in the plaintiff there is no. evidence of a conversion by the defendant, who, when the plaintiff would not let the horse stay at his house, merely allowed his negro to keep him and set up no claim to him. Property, got by a slave, may, for his want of capacity, vest in the master; but, certainly, a slave cannot, by conversion, divest the property from the owner and vest it in his master, so as to render the latter liable for such conversion. But the plaintiff had, in truth, neither a general nor a special property in the house. According to his own position the property was in Love’s executors, and from them it never passed, as far as is seen ; at all events, not to the plaintiff who purchased the negro only and not the horse. As to his being execu. tor of his own wrong, the answer is, that the law holds such an executor to many liabilities, but gives him no action ; and, moreover, that one cannot be held liable as executor de son tort, where there is a rightful executor, except in cases alleged to be fraudulent.
¶2 Per Curiam, Judgment affirmed.