
    Hardeson vs. Hays.
    Although, by the statute law of North Carolina, a gift of slaves must be by deed or writing, or the same is absolutely void; yet, where the gift was by parol, and the donee had possession, claiming the property as his own by virtue of the gift more than three years, it was held, that the title was thereby vested in him by the act of limitations, and consequently vested in a purchaser from him.
    This was an action of detinue brought by Samuel Hays against the plaintiff in error, Hardeson, to recover two slaves, Rachel and her child, which Hays claimed as his property. It appeared from the evidence, that the plaintiff below was the original owner of the slaves; that William Hays, under whom the defendant below, Hardeson, claimed, married the daughter of the plaintiff, Samuel Hays, in North Carolina, in 1811; that between that year and 1818, several slaves had been sent by Samuel Hays to William Hays, which were returned; that in January, 1818, the girl Rachel was sent in exchange for one previously sent; that from 1818, until William Hays moved to Tennessee, in 1826, Rachel remained in his possession, except a few weeks now and then, when she was at Samuel Hays’; that William Hays claimed her as his own, and exercised acts of ownership over her; that when he removed to Tennessee he carried Rachel with him; that she continued in his possession until he sold her to Harde-son, which was nearly fiveyears, but Hardeson did not have her in possession three years before this suit was brought against him. Hardeson gave William Hays three hundred and thirty dollars for Rachel, her child notthenbeing born. The laws of North Carolina, which were read in evidence, required that the gift should be in writing or it was abso-solutely void, to all intents. The jury under the charge of the court, returned a verdict for the plaintiff. Such parts of the charge as the court deemed material or necessary to notice, are contained in the opinion delivered ^ Judge Green j it is consequently unnecessary to state
    
      Craighead and Pillow, for the plaintiff in error.
    
      Webber, for the defendant in error.
   Green, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

The court in this case charged’ the jury, in substance, that if the slave, for the recovery of whom this suit was brought, was given to William Hays, of whom defendant purchased her, in North Carolina, by the plaintiff, yet the gift, not being by deed proved and registered as required by the laws of that State, it would not pass the title, and that the possession of William Hays would be the possession of the plaintiff, so that the statute of limitations could not operate against the plaintiff; and that if William Hays brought the negro to Tennessee and had her in possession in Tennessee more than five years, and then sold her to the defendant, that neither the statute of frauds, nor the statute of limitations, could operate to confer a title or bar the plaintiff’s recovery, unless the defendant had the negro in possession more than three years after his purchase from William Hays.

In this charge the circuit court clearly mistook the law. Although the act of North Carolina of 1806, ch. 701, sec. 1, requires that a gift of slaves should be by deed proved and registered, yet, when the parol gift of the slave was made, William Hays held her for himself and not for the plaintiff who had made the gift. No trust was created between the parties, as would have been the case had the .slave been loaned; but ihe possession was in law and in fact, exclusively for himself, and adverse to all the world. Having thus had an adverse possession in North Carolina and Tennessee for ten years, the plaintiff is barred by the statute of limitations.

in Kegler vs. Miles, (Mart, and Yer. 426,) this court decided, that an adverse possession, so long as to bar the plaintiff’s action against the possessor, vested' in him an absolute right to the property. The length of his possession, it being adverse, vested in William Hays an absolute right to the property, which was transferred by his deed to the defendant. The court therefore erred, in telling the jury that William Hays had not such an adverse possession in favor of which the statute of limitations could operate; and also, in telling them the defendant could not rely upon the previous possession of William Hays, and that to be protected, he must appear to have been three years in possession of the slave himself.

Reverse the judgment and remand the cause to Maury circuit court for another trial to be had.

Judgment reversed  