
    
      J. T. Crawley, administrator, vs. S. W. Tucker. The Same vs. Thomas Parks.
    
    In a contest between defendant, a purchaser of slaves, and a third person, plaintiff, claiming by title paramount to that of the vendor, the declarations of the vendor, while in possession and before the sale, rnay be given in evidence against the de-'fendhnt: and this rule applies, though the defendant purchased at sheriff’s sale.
    
      Before O’Neall, X, at Spartanburg, Spring Term, 1851.
    These were actions of trover for slaves. The plaintiff claimed by title older and better than that of one Littlefield: Tucker had purchased at sheriff’s sale, under a mortgage or execution against Littlefield: Parks claimed under one Clark, who had purchased from Littlefield.
    Littlefield’s declarations, made while in possession, were given in evidence by the plaintiff, and afterwards by the defendants.
    Yerdict for plaintiff. Defendants appealed, and now moved for a new trial, on the ground that Littlefield was a competent witness for either party, and therefore his declarations, where they formed no part of the res gestae, were inadmissible as evidence to affect defendants’s title.
    
      Tucker, for the motion.
    -, contra.
   Curia, per

O’Neall,, J.

Upon the question raised by the ground of appeal, if there be any truth in authority, there cannot be any doubt. Greenleaf having spoken, in a previous section, of the admissibility of the declarations of persons not parties to the suit, says, (1 Green. Ev. § 190,) “the same principle holds in regard to admissions made by the assignor of a personal contract or chattel, previous to the assignment, while he remained the sole proprietor, and where the assignee must recover through the title of the assignor, and succeeds only to that title as it stood at the time of its transfer.” This is enough for this case, for here both the defendants defend themselves by the title, as it existed when each of the negro slaves was sold as Littlefield’s property. It is perfectly immaterial that Tucker bought at sheriff’s sale, and that Littlefield has no interest in his case. It is still Littlefield’s title which is to protect him: and his declarations made it, while it was in him, bad — it remains so in his vendee.

But the case of Land vs. Lee, (2 Rich. 168,) is decisive of this question. There it was ruled that “the declarations of the vendor of personal property, made before the sale, are competent evidence against his vendee.”

The motions in both cases are dismissed.

Evans, Withers and Whitner, JJ., concurred.

Frost, J., absent at the argument.

Motions dismissed.  