
    John G. Blount, Administrator of Daniel Neale, vs. William Haddock.
    This was an Action of Detinue brought in Newbern Superior Court of Law, for a Negro man named George. Pleas not det. and stat. lim. The cause was tried at March Term, 1800, and the following special verdict found:—“ That the Negro in question was the property of William Taylor, who, on the 26th day of May, 1765, made a deed of gift of the same to his daughter Sarah Taylor, in the words following, to wit: “ North-Carolina, Pitt County : To all to whom these presents shall come : Know ye, that I, William Taylor, of the County and Province aforesaid, for the love, good will and affection which I have and do bear towards my daughter Sarah Taylor, have given one Negro Boy named George, which said Negro Boy I do by these presents, fully, freely, and absolutely give, grant, and bequeath to my said daughter Sarah, to her, her heirs and assigns forever, reserving the use of the said Negro to me, my wife Dinah, during our natural lives, and after our decease, to be her own proper right and property, which said Negro I promise myself, my Executors, to warrant and defend to her, the said Sarah, against the lawful right, title or claim of any person whatever. In witness whereof, I, the said William Taylor, have hereunto set my hand and seal, this 27th May, 1765.
    
      
    
    Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of
    
      Martin Nelson, Mary Nelson and Mary Edwards.
    
    May Court, 1765; ordered to be registered.”
    “ That Sarah, the daughter, afterwards intermarried with Daniel Neal, the Plaintiff’s intestate; that the said Sarah died about the year 1775, and the said Daniel soon afterwards; that William Taylor, the donor, died in the year 1794, and Dinah, the wife of the Donor, died in the year 1795 ; that the said William Taylor and Dinah, his wife, continued in the possession of the said Negro until their deaths. The Jury pray the advice of the Court, if the Plaintiff be entitled to recover.”
   By the Court.—

As this property never vested in possession during the coverture of the plaintiff’s interstate with his wife Sarah, he could only have recovered in the event of his surviving the donor and his wife, by taking out administration upon his deceased wife’s effects. And even then the property would have been assets in his hands to pay the debts of his wife, contracted while she was sole. Upon his death, his administrator can recover at law, only such things, whereof he might have acquired the possession in his own right, and not those which he was compellable to pursue in a representative character. The administrator of the wife, therefore, is the proper person to bring this action; and when the property is recovered, it will be liable, as before, to the legal claims against the wife, and the residue belongs to the representatives of the husband as her next of kin.  