
    Drummond v. Sneed.
    [October Term, 1800.]
    Husband and Wife — Husband’s Right of Survivorship.— W. B. devised slaves to his daughter A. W. for life remainder to all her children. One of whom by the name of O. married E. O. and died in the lifetime of her mother & husband: Her husband took administration on her estate. A division was afterwards made of the slaves; and one by the name of Lazer, was assigned, as the share of the said C. C. The said E. G. the surviving husband, took possession of the said slave, and sold him to C. S. for a valuable consideration: after this M. C. the eldest son of the said C. C. took possession of the said slave and sold him to B. D. The sale by E. C. the husband was good, and C. S. the purchaser, is entitled to the slave.
    This cause is an appeal from the court of the county of Accomack. There Charles Sneed, the appellee, exhibited a bill in Chancery against Robert Drummond, the appellant, and Jonathan Willet and Major Chambers, stating,
    That one William Burton having a daughter named Agness married to one John West, devised several slaves to her for life, with a remainder to all her children in equal divisions.
    *That the said Agness had nine children, one of whom named Cath-arine intermarried with one- Edmund Chambers, and died in the lifetime of her mother and husband.
    That the said Edmund Chambers administered on the estate of the said Agness.
    That at length a division was made of the said slaves, and a slave named Lazer was assigned as the share of the said Cath-arine, together with ^21. 16. 8. with interest from the 3d day of November 1766.
    That the said Edmund Chambers possessed himself of the said slave and sold and delivered him to the said Charles Sneed for a valuable consideration bona fide paid.
    That the said slave was afterwards in 1768 spirited away from the said Charles Sneed by one Jonathan Willet, who together with the said Major Chambers, the eldest son of the said Catharine, sold the said slave to the said Robert Drummond, who knew all the circumstances of the said Charles Sneed’s purchase, and that the said Charles Sneed delayed the bringing of this suit until the 24th day of September 1771, merely to wait the event of a suit depending for the division of the said slaves. The prayer of the bill is for the restitution of the said slave, an account for his hire and of the £21. 16. 8. aforesaid.
    ■ Robert Drummond answers.
    That he acknowledges the will of the said William Burton, the devises therein, the intermarriage of Catharine with Edmund Chambers, her death before her mother, the birth of Major Chambers, the letters of administration by Edmund Chambers on the said Catharine’s estate, as these different facts are stated in the bill.
    The said Drummond denies that he knew of any right to the slaves left by the said Burton being ^'vested in the said Edmund but in the right of the said Major his son ; and asserts that by a partition under a decree of the General Court on the 26th day of February 1765 the slave Lazer was allotted to the said Major Chambers upon his paying the sum of £26. 15. 10. with interest from the 23d day of November 1766; that he was never acquainted with the possession of the said slave by the complainant; that Edmund Chambers could not avail himself of the aforesaid decree, not being a party thereto, nor being a child, or grand child of Agness West; that he purchased the slave Lazef of Major Chambers for ^45. bona fide paid after the partition aforesaid and an assignment of the rights oft he children of the said Agness to the said slave.
    Jonathan Willet answers.
    That he did never entice the said slave Lazer from the service of the said Charles Sneed, and disclaims all interest in the said stave; that he believes that Edmund Chambers took possession of the said slave as father of his son Major Chambers; that upon complaint of ill usage the County Court of Accomack, as the said J. Willet believes, put the said Major and the said slave into the hands of John West, who hired him for the benefit of the said Major; that the said John West for some unknown cause surrendered the said slave and the said Edmund took possession of him; that he has never received any money for the hire of the said slave, but what he has accounted for to Major Chambers.
    Major Chambers answers, admitting the facts as to William Burton’s will, the death of his mother Catharine in the lifetime of her mother and husband; that under the decree aforesaid the said slave was delivered to the said Jonathan Willet as agent for the said Major Chambers. That the said Major Chambers sold the said slave to the said Robert Drummond; that he never knew the said slave to have been in the possession of the said *Sneed; that he never seduced the said slave from him; that he has purchased all the rights of the children of the said Agness West; that the said Drummond purchased the said Major Chambers title to the said slave at his own risque; that the said Major knows nothing of the ^21. 16. 8. mentioned in the said Sneed’s bill and has received about ;£10. for the hire of the said slave.
    The exhibits consist of the will of William Burton, the deed of Edmund Chambers to Charles Sneed bearing date the 30th day of January 1765, and passing the said slave; the proceedings for the partition of the said slaves in which proceedings Edmund Chambers is no party until he had sold to Charles Sneed as aforesaid, sundry depositions, and the order for administration on his wife’s estate in favor of the said Edmund Chambers on the 1st of May 1765.
    A decree was made in favor of the said Charles Sneed and the said Drummond appealed therefrom.
    The cause came on to be heard before the High Court of Chancery on Thursda3 the 22d day of May 1783 who adjourned it to the Court of Appeals on account of difficulty.
    The counsel for the appellee. Insisted on the following points.
    1. That Edmund Chambers had full power to sell the slave Eazer, as husband and administrator of his wife.
    2. That he actually did sell the slaves to the said Charles Sneed; which sale they contended was good, whether the said Edmund was considered as husband, or administrator.
    3. That the partition did not affect the right of the said Charles Sneed.
    The certificate of the Court of • Appeals was as follows:
    *“The Court this day gave their opinion, that the decree of the County Court of Accomack, mentioned in the transcript of the record in this cause, pronounced the 27th day of April 1779, ought to be affirmed; which opinion is ordered to be certified, with the allowance of the costs in this Court (except a lawyers fee,) to the High Court of Chancery.”
    
      
      Husband and Wife — Husband’s Right of Survivor-ship. — The principal case Is cited in Wallace v. Taliaferro, 2 Call 470, 483, 489. See Dade v. Alexander, 1 Wash. 30. in which it is held that a feme sole, entitled to slaves in remainder, or reversion, after-wards marrying, and dying before the determination of the particular estate, the right rests on the husband.
      See monographic note on “Husband and Wife” appended to Cleland v. Watson, 10 Gratt. 159.
    
     