From Cabarrus. Detinue for negro slave Violet: plea::, non delimit and. stat. lim. Upon the trial, ike title of the Plaintiffs appeared (o be derived by a perol gift to the feme Plaintiff, while sole, and an infant, by her step-father, J. Means, in whose house she lived at the time of the gift, and after-wards until her intermarriage with the other Plaintiff, which happened before she M as of full age, and several years after the gift had been made.
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently July 1803
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
¶2
The only propel" conclusion that can be-drawn from the statement of the case is, that the slave
Violet
was delivered to the female Plaintiff by
Means
when the gift was made.;
*70
for a transfer of possession is implied, since, without it, a gift is not valid. This continued up to the time of the n 4
x
marriage inclusive, and
Spiers,
the husband, then acquired, in right of his wife, the possession of the slave, which lie continued to hold during the time he remained in the house of Means. It signifies nothing that he left the slave with
Means
upon departing' from his house, for his separate right of action had attached upon the marriage : the property was a chose in possession, and world, have devolved upon his representatives, had he died the next day. That
Spiers’s
wife, before his marriage, and he afterwards, had possession, is further to be inferred from the fact stated, that
Means
claimed and exercised an 'ownership over the slave
from the time
the Plaintiffs left his house until his death ; from which the implication is necessary, that while the Plaintiffs continued at his house, he did
not
claim or exercise ownership over them. The right of
Spiers,
therefore, Vas effectually barred in 1803. In the cases heretofore decided, in which it was held, that the wife was properly joined in detinue, no possession in the husband appeared, and he was consequently suing for a chose in action, which, without such possession, no .Id survive to the wife. From this view of the case, ii results, that it is unnecessary to decide the other question arising out of the operation of the supervening coverture of Mrs.
Spiers
upon the statute of limitations.
