
    Arabella E. Peay vs. James McEwen.
    One, who received a fifty dollar bill from the plaintilf’s slave, and detained it, supposing it to be stolen, held bound, after advertising the bill and waiting over three years, to pay it to the plaintiff, no better owner appearing.
    BEFORE WHITNER, J., AT KERSHAW, FALL TERM, 1854.
    Defendant took from plaintiff’s slave Jacob, a fifty dollar bank bill, supposing it to have been stolon. He advertised for the owner, but no one appeared, and after waiting over three years the plaintiff brought her action for the amount of the bill.
    The bill, it appeared, was "claimed by Sarah, another slave of the plaintiff. Sarah, in consideration of washing, sewing, &c., done for Caesar, a slave of Thomas Starke, had received the bill from Caesar, just before the removal of his master to Florida. The bill had been placed in Jacob’s possession by Sarah, to purchase some articles for her in Camden, where it was exhibited to the defendant, who detained it. Sarah had no means of acquiring so much money.
    His Honor decreed for the plaintiff fifty dollars; and the defendant appealed on the grounds;
    1, Because (it is respectfully submitted) plaintiff’s proof was not sufficient in law, to entitle her to recover.
    " 2. Because, assuming that a.bank note which had been in the possession of a slave, could be sued for and recovered by the master, the plaintiff cannot recover, because her slave obtained the note sued for in this case, from the slave of a third person, in traffic, which third person, upon this principle, had a prior claim.
    
      Kershaw, for the motion,
    cited Gregg vs. Thompson, 2 Mill, 831.
    
      Oaston, contra,
    cited Table vs. Brown, 2 Hill, Ch. 396; Lenoir vs. Sylvester, 1 Bail. 642; Gist vs. Toohey, 2 Rich. 424.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Wardlaw, J.

If the woman Sarah rightfully acquired the fifty dollar bill, it thereby became the property of her mistress, the plaintiff. The defendant, who honestly stopped the bill and advertised it, under the belief that an owner better than Sarah would appear, has no right himself to appropriate it; and such time has elapsed that it may be fairly presumed that no better owner will appear, and that the plaintiff’s claim, if much longer delayed, might be barred by the Statute of Limitations. Whatever suspicions - may be entertained concerning the honesty of the possession which was in Caesar, from whom Sarah obtained the bill, and who got it we do not know how, the silence of Mr. Starke, (Caesar’s master,) notwithstanding the advertisement, raises the implication of his assent to the executed transaction between Caesar and Sarah, so as to take from the defendant the excuse of a right in Starke, to authorize the further detention of the money.

The case falls within the principles established by Gist vs. Toohey, (2 Rich. 424,) and the oases therein cited.

The motion is dismissed.

O’Neall, WmiERS, WhitNer, G-lover and Munro, JJ., concurred.

Motion dismissed»  