
    Brown vs. Campsall.
    Appeal from Baltimore county court. Replevin foi' a horse. The defendant, (now appellee,) pleaded property j and at (he trial, the plaintiff) (the appellant,) offered evidence to prove, that the horse mentioned m 'the declaration wss once his property, and that before the institution of the present suit, he exchanged him with one Wilson for a lie roe which Wilson had previously stolen from emu Richard Not ns, and that Wilson represented to the plaintiff, at the time of the exchange, that the horse which lie gave in exciofuge ?o the plaintiff’was the horse off; r'Aenjthat Kerri:, ¡>í n die exchange, found his horse, so exchanged, ia t.,e , *f the plaintiff, who delivered him to Korns. The defendant, then proved, that ifimon, after the said exchange, brought the horse which be had so as aforesaid received from the plaintiff, to the city of Baltimore, and sold him at puolxe auction to the. defendant, for a valuable consideration, and. without any notice on the part of the defendant, of the manner in which he, the said Wilson, had acquired the horse, and that the sale at auction was made previous to the issuing of the replevin in this cause. The defendant then prayed the court lo direct the jury, that, if thqy believed the above facts, the plaintiff was not entitled to recoverj which opinion and direction the court, [Dorsey Ch. J.'] gave. The defendant excepted; and the verdict and judgment being against him, he appealed to this court.
    
      TP exchanged » hoi so, wlaeh he-had before stolen'^ Mui» ií, íoi alioise at JJs, ana aiterWfll us 80.<1 horoe to C\ for ¿ Viutiahlc eojisxide» ration, ik \uiiiout notice on the part, oí C of the mamiei* in winch W Had obmhuttlwn. m an action cf replevin bj Ü a^asii % C, for tin-; iaut 1) OTSi — JltlUic, thus it v.as not entitled to recover
    The cause was argued before Buchanax, Ch. J. Earle, Martin, Stüphkx, and Archer, J.
    
      11. Johnson, for the Appellant,
    contended, 1. That the .sale of the horse to the appellee was inoperative and invalid as against the appellant. 2.That at the time of the sale the appellant did not lose his property in the horse. 3. The contract being wholly void, the property in the horse; continued in the appellant
    To show that the English law as to sales in market- overt is not in force in this country, he referred to Browning vs. Magill, in this court, (June 1808,) and Wheelwright vs. Depeyster, 1 Johns. Rep. 471. He also contended, that Wilson might have been prosecuted for felony for taking ihe horse in dispute. lie cited 3 Bac. Ab. tit. Felony, (C.) 132. That sale was wholly void on account of the fraud. 1 Com. Cont. 37; and Hodgson vs. Richardson, 1 W. Blk. Rep. 465, per Yates, J.
    
      Moale, for the Appellee.
    As between the original par-, tjes to the contract, if it was fraudulent, there would be no question as to its being void. But that is not this case. Here the appellant parted with his property voluntarily.' Until fraud was proved, Wilson had complete property in the horse. This is not the ease'of a horse stolen from the' appellant, which would not divest the property, but it is a sale with his consent. The appellee had ho notice of the fraud, and is á bona fide' purchaser for a valuable' consideration, He cited and relied on Parker vs. Patrick, 5 T. R. 175. Doe vs. Martyr, 4 Bos. & Pull. 332. Jackson vs. Henry, 10 Johns. Rep. 185; and Fletcher vs. Peck, 6 Cranch, 133.
   JUDGMENT AFFIUMEB.  