
    Stone, Guardian of Three Minor Children, against Ebberly.
    Trover wilt lie for a negro bought at a sheriff’s sale, against an in-¿ee^'who pays
    TROVER for a negro boy. This case came before the •court on a special verdict found m the year 1790, as fol- , ’ ¿OWS i
    
    “ That Mathew Guerin, (whose daughter, Thomas Stone, “ the present plaintiff, married,) by deed of gift, gave sun-“ “ dry negroes to his three grand-children, Thomas Stone, “ the younger, and Elizabeth and Mary Stone, all minors “ and under age, share and share alike, and among others, “ the boy in question. That Thomas Stone, the eldest of “the grand-children, came to Charleston, and contracted “ several debts with tradesmen, being then about twenty “ years of age ; and having gone off to Georgia, the boy in “ question, who had attended him as a waiting man, was. tc attached as his property, and afterwards sold by the “ sheriff under the attachment act, in order to satisfy his, young Slone's, debts. At this sale, the present defendant “ became the purchaser of this negro boy. And whether “ this sale, being a public sale, and made under the sanction “ of law, toa fair bona fide purchaser, for a valuable, con- “ sideration, would bar the plaintiff of his right of action in. “ the present suit l was the point submitted to the court, w If it did, then the jury found for the defendantj if no!;, u then for the plaintiff, with costs.”
    The case underwent several ingenious arguments.
    
      For the plaintiff, it was compared to sale made in market 0i}ert, where the thing sold was secured to the purchaser at all events. That it was a sale made by operation of law, under a public act; and to defeat the purchaser of his pur-ijhase, would have a tendency to clog sheriffs’ sales exceedingly, and would lessen the value of property brought to sale upon those occasions. That the defendant was a fair purchaser, had paid his money, got the sheriff’s bill of sple, a,nd ought to be secured in his purchase ; otherwise^ he would lose his money, which he had fairly paid away, under the sanction of the proceedings of our courts of justice, which otherwise might be calculated to entrap and deceive unwary purchasers, See.
    On the other hand, it was contended, that young Stone was a minor, incapable of contracting, except for necessaries, which was not even alleged. Rut admitting he was of full age at the time, no property in the negro was ever vested in him. The property was in Stone, the father, as guardian, till his children came of age, and a division made among them. And if no property was in him, then it was not liable to his debts. That the negro was attached by mistake ; and the mistake of the sheriff, or plaintiff, could not. devest the original owner. That it was clear law, that if the sheriff seizes and sells the goods of A. for the debts of B. trespass will lie against him. That the inconveniences would be greater to the community, in giving a legal sanction to such mistaken sales, in selling the goods of innocent third persons, than it would be in subjecting the property in the hands of an innocent vendee, to the action of trover. One of the great objects of the laws of civil society, was to protect persons in their property, wherever it should be found. To give the case, therefore, the construction contended for by the defendant, would be converting the law into an engine of oppression, in depriving one of the very property it was bound to preserve and protect. Besides, the defendant was not remediless, for he might recover his money from the plaintiff in attachment, who had received his money by mistake : whereas, if the sale was confirmed, the younger children of Stone would be without remedy. The case against the sheriffs of London, 1 Burr. 31. was principally relied on for the plaintiff.
   The Court,

(present, the Chief Justice, Burke, J. and Waties, J.)

after a full consideration of the case, were clearly of opinion, that the action of trover would lie against the vendee, as the property still remained in Thomas Stone, the father, as guardian of his children; and no mistake or tortious act of the sheriff, could devest innocent third persons of their property, lawfully acquired.

Pringle and Ford.¿ for plaintiff.

Pinckney and Taylor, for defendant.

The postea delivered to the plaintiff.  