
    Medley v. Jones.
    March 6, 1816.
    I. Bonds - AssivGianeisl — Payment by Attorney in Fací ot Obligor — Knect.—A bond to stay execution on a judgment wats assigned for value received: without notice to the assignee of any equity against it: and after dissolution of an injunction to the judgment. The security in said bond, who was also attorney in iact tor the principal obligor, paid it off, without execution, and without any particular instruction to do so: — after which, the chancellor re-instated the in ¡unction. Tt was held that such payment by the attorney in fact was a waiver of the equity in behalf of the principal, who, therefore, notwithstanding the re-instatement of the injunction, was not entitled to recover back the money paid.
    3. Slaves — Rights of Remainderman as ag-ainst Tenant for Life. — A person entitled to a remainder in fee, expectant upon a life estate, in slaves, taking them into his own possession to prevent the tenant for life from carrying them out of the state, is bound to account for and pay their hire or profits while lie detains them; and is not entitled, upon the ground of the tenant's refusing to give bond and security for their production at the expiration of the life estate, to an injunction, to stay proceedings upon a judgment, against him, for such hire or profits.
    This was an action of assumpsit, brought by Joseph Jones against Isaac Medley, in the superior court of law for Halifax *county, to recover back a sum of money paid, under the following circumstances, disclosed by a bill of exceptions signed and sealed at the trial.
    On the 4th of May, 1803, the plaintiff Jones, upon his bill for that purpose exhibited, obtained, from the judge of the superior court of chancery for the Richmond district, a writ of ne exeat and injunction, against a certain Elizabeth Rogers, to prevent her removing from this state certain slaves, (in which, by virtue of a bill of sale from the said Jones, she had a life estate, with a reversion to him in fee,) until security should be given for their production to him at her death. During the pend-ency of this suit in chancery, one of the slaves, by the name of Aaron, having come into the possession of Jones, and being detained by him, Elizabeth Rogers brought her action of detinue to recover that slave with damages for the detention ; and, at Halifax May court 1807, a verdict was found and judgment rendered in her favour for the said slave, and 1001. damages, besides her costs. In the preceding month of March, the chancellor had decreed that if bond and security according to the prayer of the bill, were not given, within three months from the end of the term, the slaves in question should then be delivered into the custody of the complainant, to be by him held, as his own goods and chattels, during the life of the said Elizabeth Rogers, or until such bond and security should be given, as aforesaid; that, in the event of their being delivered to the complainant, he should account for the annual profits thereof, to her, during her life, or until such bond should be given, &c. In the same year 1807, the complainant obtained an injunction against Mrs. Rogers, forbidding her proceeding to carry the judgment aforesaid into effect, and intended to enforce a compliance with the decree. In February 1809, this injunction was dissolved; and, Mrs. Rogers proceeding to enforce the judgment, the said Jones, with John Baynham *his security, on the 22d of May following, gave a bond to stay execution, according to the act of assembly, passed the 31st of January 1809, entitled, “an act concerning executions, and for other purposes which bond was assigned for value received, to George Rogers, and by him, in like manner, to Isaac Medley, in April 1810. This bond was given under the law then in force, on account of so much of the said judgment as was rendered for the damages, and costs. On the 28th of May, 1810, John Baynham, the security above mentioned ‘ ‘who was also Attorney in fact for the’ plaintiff, ” paid off the bond to Medley, “without execution, and without any particular instruction from Jones.”
    On the 16th of June 1810, the chancellor set aside the order dissolving the last mentioned injunction, and ordered that “the rights of Mrs. Rogers, acquired by the said judgment, be altogether suspended, until she comply with the decree pronounced in March 1807.” Of this order, neither Baynham, nor the defendant Medley, had notice at the time of the payment aforesaid. It did not appear that the decree of March 1807 had been complied with; but the negro had, ever since the judgment, remained in Jones’s possession.
    Upon this statement of facts, the plaintiff moved the court to instruct the jury, that the action was maintainable; — which instruction was accordingly given. The jury thereupon found a verdict, and judgment was entered for the plaintiff, from which the defendant appealed to this court.
   March 6th, 1816,

JUDGE ROANE

pronounced the court’s opinion.

The court, considering that the money now in controversy was paid by the agent of the appellee to the appellant, as an as-signee without notice of any equity existing against the bond assigned; — which appellee, by his said agent, was competent to waive the assertion by the alleged equity, in relation to such assignee, and, further, considering that the said money properly accrued to Mrs. Rogers, (under whom the appellant claims,) according to the principles of the decree of March 16th, 1807, as the hire or profits of the slave Aaron, during her life; — is of opinion, that the instruction given by the court was erroneous, and that a contrary instruction ought to *have been given upon the case stated in the bill of exceptions. The judgment therefore is reversed, and a venire de novo awarded, in which no such instruction is to be given.  