
    John Haggerty v. Henry Corri.
    An instrument which purports to be a sale, but in which there is no price stated, will not be regarded as a sale, but as a donation.
    A donation, in which the donor reserves the usufruct for life is invalid, C. C. 1520.
    A married woman cannot malte a contract of sale or donation without the authorization of her husband.
    APPEAL from the Fifth District Court of New Orleans, Buchanan, J. The judgment of the court of the first instance was as follows : “Plaintiff claims to have been, since the 27th May, 1837, and to be still, the owner of a slave named George, which has been sold by the defendant, to his prejudice.
    “Defendant pleads the general issue, and alleges title to the slave George in himself.
    “Under these pleadings it was clearly incumbent on plaintiff to prove a title. The title which the date contained in the petition implies is found in a document dated 28th May, 1837, a deed from Eliza H. Pope to John Haggerty. Is this deed a sale, or a donation 1 It purports in terms to be a sale. But it cannot be a sale, for there is no price. The consideration expressed is “the love and affection which” Mrs. Pope’s love to the plaintiff. As a donation it is bad, because Mrs. Pope therein reserves to herself the usufruct of the slave George during her natural life. Civil Code, art. 1520.
    “Another document introduced by plaintiff is a renunciation of right, claim, and interest in the slave George and others, made by Henry Corri, the defendant, on the 10th July, 1839, defendant being then the husband of Mrs. Eliza H. Pope, in favor of the plaintiff, of one Michcel L. Pope, and of his, defendant’s, wife. This renunciation certainly was not intended for the exclusive benefit of plaintiff; and he has adduced no proof that he is the legal representative of Pope and of Mrs. Corri.
    
    “The plaintiff has further given in evidence, a third title, also from Mrs. Corri. This title is dated August 10th, 1840. It purports to be a sale, although no price is stipulated; the consideration being precisely the same as expressed in the title of the 28th May, 1837. But the defendant’s counsel has pointed out a capital defect in this instrument, which renders it utterly void. It is a contract made by a married woman, without the authority or participation of her husband.
    “I conclude, that the plaintiff has failed in proving any title in himself to the slave George. And it is accordingly adjudged and decreed, that there be judgment for defendant.”
    
      Hornor, for plaintiff. Roselius, for defendant. Gaither, for intervenor.
   The judgment of the court was pronounced by

Eustis, C. J.

For the reasons given by the district judge in his written opinion, it is ordered, that the judgment appealed from be affirmed, with costs.  