
    
      F. Bowen vs. James M. Coker.
    
    Negroes were mortgaged by the defendant to the plaintiff, to secure the payment of a bond due at a future day. To pay interest as it accrued on the bond, the defendant, by agreement in writing indorsed on the mortgage, hired the negroes to the plaintiff. Before the period of hiring had expired, the defendant retook the negroes. Held, that the plaintiff might maintain trover for the conversion.
    The bailee for hire of a chattel may maintain trover against the bailor for a conversion.
    
      Before Richardson, J. at Kershaw, Fall Term, 1845.
    Trover for the conversion of negroes. The negroes in dispute were mortgaged by the defendant to the plaintiff on the 5th October, 1840, to secure the payment of a bond payable on the 1st January, 1846. By an agreement of the same date with the mortgage and indorsed on it, the defendant hired the negroes to the plaintiff, until the 1st January, 1846, at one hundred and twenty-nine dollars and fifty cents per annum, to be applied to the payment of the interest on the bond as it annually accrued. The negroes went into the plaintiff’s possession, and were re-taken by the defendant in March, 1843.
    His Honor sustained a motion for a nonsuit, which the plaintiff now moved to set aside.
    
      W. F. DeSaussure, for the motion.
    Smart, contra.
   Curia, per Frost, J.

Under the agreement, the plaintiff acquired a right of property and possession which may support an action of trover against the owner. This is the proper action when the plaintiff’s right of property and dominion is divested by the destruction or wrongful conversion of the property; and by it, he may recover equivalent damages for the injury he has sustained. By the agreement to hire, the plaintiff acquired not merely a special property, like that of a bailee for safe keeping or for carrying, which is subordinate to the bailor’s right of property and possession, but he acquired a temporary property in the negroes, and a right of possession against the defendant himself. In Parker vs. Patrick, 5 T. R. 175, the defendant’s goods had been fraudulently obtained from him, and pawned to the plaintiff, without any knowledge of the fraud. The defendant had procured the conviction of the pawner, and, by that means, possession of the goods. Judgment was rendered for the plaintiff. In Roberts vs. Wyatt, 2 Taunt. 277, on a contract for the sale of an estate, the vendor, according to the terms, had furnished the plaintiff, the vendee, with an abstract of his title. It was re-delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant, the attorney of the vendor, to consider and supply the objections to the title, which the plaintiff’s attorney had made in writing on the abstract. The defendant refused to restore it to the plaintiff, on demand. The action was supported, on the ground that until the agreement to purchase was va-cated5 the plaintiff had, under the terms, a temporary property in the vendor’s abstract of title, and the defendant’s refusal to restore it was a wrongful conversion. In Lenoir vs. Sylvester, 1 Bail. 633, it was held that the executor of the tenant for life might, under the Act of 1789, recover, in trover, the hire of negroes between the first of March and end of December. The motion is granted.

Richardson, O’Neall, Evans, Butler and Ward-law, JJ. concurred. • 
      
      
         5 Stat. 111.
     