
    Ratrie vs. Sanders.
    Where the (8e« Jemlam wfisiw jxiísession hojding *b«re,t&w the -spiiee of tlioee ■years antecedentes* the institution an action of repte»vinagainst him *f«r 'the slave— fliat the «latirte ¡limitations was bar to the piswntiff’s recover),jim* withstanding *he property in the1 slave hail Leenü» the 7>laii»4)ff. -«Tid the slave was hf him kvned tfnr 4m indefinite time J S, who during that loan so'd the a five to the <M! ntlani; and although the suit was \m71c within three years from the time the p'aintifl know ,0a* such safe*
    Appeal from Montgomery county court. Tire appellant brought an action of replevin against the appellee, for a negro slave called Jane, to which non cepit infra tres annas, and actio non accrevil infra tres annos, and property in the defendant, were pleaded. The defendant, at the trial, prayed the court to direct the jury, that if they were of opinion from the evidence, that the defendant had been in the possession of Jane for the space of three years prior to the institution of this suit, holding her as his own property, that then the act of limitations was a bar to the plaintiff’s action. But the court, (Clagelt, Ch. J.) refused to give the direction; but did direct the jury, that if they were satisfied that the property in said slave was in the plaintiff, aad that he lent her for an indefinite time to Joseph Sanders, and during that loan Joseph Sanders sold her to the defendant, that by the sale the defendant stood in the same situation that Joseph Sanders had stood in, and that the act of limitations did not begin to run against the plaintiff imtil lié knew of the sale by Joseph Sanders to the defendant,' The defendant excepted; and the verdict and judgment being against him; he brought the present appeal.
    The case was argued before Tilghman, Polk, anil Buciíanan, J.
    
      Key, fob the Appellant;
    referred to the act of 1715j 'cli. 23, s: 2.
    
      Mason, fot the Appellee:
   JUDGMENT 'REVERSED, AND PROCEDENDO AWARDED:  