
    Elihu Madden v. Nathaniel Day.
    Columbia,
    May, 1830.
    A gift will be supported against subsequent creditors with notice, although the donor retain possession after the gift.
    Tried before Mr. Justice Gantt, at Laurens, Spring Term, 1830.
    Trover for a slave levied on as the property of John Madden, The plaintiff claimed by a parol gift from John Madden, which gift the defendant contended to be fraudulent, and void. The character of the case will be understood from the report of a former appeal, which will be found at page 337, ante. The evidence at the new trial did not greatly differ from that introduced on the former trial; and under the disposition made of the case by the Court of Appeals, it does not appear to be necessary to state more, than that the levy by the defendant was made under an execution in favor of Rogers & Latimer, for a debt due by Zimri Madden, a ,son of John Madden, for which the latter became security, long subsequent to the gift: and there was evidente going to shew, that notice of the gift to the present plaintiff, had been given to Rogers & Latimer by John Madden, at the time when he contracted his liability to them. '
    The jury, under the charge of the presiding Judge, found for the plaintiff; and the defendant moved to set aside the verdict for misdirection, on various grounds.
    Irby, for the motion.
    Donlap, contra.
    
   Evans, J.

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The principles on which this case depends, have been so fully discussed in the case of Howard v. Williams, (ante, p. 575.) that it is unnecessary here to repeat them. It does not appear, that the presiding Judge mistook the law applicable to the case, and I am not dissatisfied with the finding of the' jury. The new trial was granted before on the ground, that the amount of the sale of the negro Jim was applied to pay a debt, existing at the time of the gift. It does not appear from the report, that that fact existed in evidence at the last trial; and it was proved, that at the time the donor became security for his son Zimri, in September, 1826, to Rogers & Latimer, he informed Rogers that he had given to each of his children, a small negro. Now alt|,0Ugrh this does not prove that the creditor knew of this specific gift».ye* it certainly was notice, that all the property, of which he was visible owner, was not his. The grounds upon which qUpst¡0|ls 0f jJh¡s jjinc| have been supposed to depend, is that the creditor lias been deceived by the donor’s seeming to be owner of what was in his possession. Now.Rogers & Latimer, who are the creditors claiming to have this gift set aside, were notified, that John Madden had given a little negro to the plaintiff, and cannot be supposed to have looked to the whole of the property in John Madden’s possession for the payment of their debt.

Motion refused.  