
    *Williamson v. Farley.
    April, 1820.
    Sale of Slaves — Retention of Possession by Vendor— Fraud Per Se. — A vendor’s retaining' possession of slaves, for which an absolute bill of sale is given, is per se fraudulent.
    Williamson brought detinue against Ear-ley, for the recovery of certain slaves. At the trial, he offered in evidence, a deed of trust executed by Jacobus Christopher, conveying the slaves in controversy to Williamson, in trust to secure a debt due one Tarwater. The deed was dated 13th January, 1817.
    The defendant Earley to prove his title, offered an absolute bill of sale from Christopher to him, dated 6th January 1817; the consideration of which was the sum of $1000. The subscribing witnesses to this deed proved, that at the time of executing it, the slaves were brought into the presence of the parties, and Christopher told Farley, the slaves were his, and he might do as he pleased with them. They proved also, that at the same time and place, Earley hired the said slaves to Christopher for one year, for their food and clothing, and took a bond for their restoration at the end of the year; that the slaves remained in Christopher’s possession from the date of the bill of sale, ’till about the 1st February following, when Earley took possession of them. They farther proved, that Farley had paid Christopher for the said slaves between $775 and 800, and that he was the acting partner of a mercantile firm, to which Christopher was indebted, in the sum of $400.
    Upon these facts set forth in a bill of exceptions, the plaintiff moved the court to instruct the Jury, that if they believed the testimony, the sale was fraudulent and void as to the plaintiff, because the possession remaining with *the vendor, was a fraud in itself. The court refusing the instruction, Williamson appealed.
    Note. See Robertson v. Ewell, 3 Munf. 1, and Thomas v. Soper, 5 Mem. 28, In corroboration.— Edition 1821.
    
      
      iSaie of Personalty — Retention of Possession by Vendor — Fraud Per Se. — On this subject, see foot-note to Davis v. Turner, 4 Graft. 442, where the Virginia and West Virginia authorities in point are collected. The principal case was cited on the subj ect In Land v. Jeffries, 5 Rand. 252, COfi, 607, 608; Claytor v. Anthony. 6 Rand. 304; Shirley v. Long, 6 Rand. 755; Sydnor v. Gee, Leigh 547; Lewis v. Adams, 6 Leigh 337. 338: Davis v. Turner, 4 Gratt. 449, 452, 459, 461; Ilindley v. Martin, 28 W. Va. 793; Howard v. Prince, 12 Fed. Gas. 651.
    
   ROANE, Judge.

The court is of opinion, that the judgment of the Superior court is erroneous in this, that the instruction asked for by the appellant, was not given. Therefore it is reversed with costs, and a new trial is awarded, in which the instruction aforesaid if required is to be given. 
      
      1330010; absent.
     