
    Davis vs. Mitchell.
    A deed registered is not necessary to pass title to a slave when possession follows and accompanies the gift or sale.
    An infant may hold adverse possession of a slave either by himself or guardian, and such possession for three years will vest the title of the slave in the infant.
    This suit was brought to recover a slave. The plaintiff proved that the slave had been given to him whilst an infant; that at the time of malting the gift, possession of the slave was given to his guardian, and that he had remained with his guardian for three years and more before he came to the possession of the defendant. The plaintiff did not produce any deed or bill of sale which had been registered, none having been made. The court among other things charged the jury, that the act of 1784 was not repealed by the act of 1801, so that there was still a necessity for a bill of sale. The court also charged the jury, that possession óf a slave for three years by an infant claiming the slave as his own, would communicate no title to the infant, as the infant could not hold adversely until he arrived at the age of twenty-one years. The jury found a verdict for the defendant, and a motion for a new trial having been made and overruled, the plaintiff prosecutes this writ of error to this court.
   G-Reen, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

In this case the judge below, among other things, told the jury, that “the act- of 1784 is hot repealed by the act of 1801, so that there is still a necessity for a bill of sa^e‘” Although the act of 1784 is not repealed, nevertheless the succeeding sentence of the charge is too broad. A deed registered is. only necessary where possession does not accompany the gift-or sale. It has been constantly held, that where pt>|session is delivered at the time a gift or sale of a slave is<inade, it is good as between the parties, and vests a title Without a deed. 2 Hay. Rep. 62, 67, 87: Cains and wife vs. Marley, 1 Yerg. R. 582.

But from this charge it would seem the judge considered a bill of sale as necessary in all cases, in order to communicate title. In this he erred. The court further charged, that “a possession of three years by an infant, would not be an adverse possession, nor until the child arrived at twenty-one could be adverse.” In this also there is error. The possession of an infant either by himself or hi's guardian, may as well be adverse to all other titles, as though he were an adult. Infancy protects a party from the consequences of many of his acts; but no one else can take advantage of that infancy. As upon these two points the court erred, and as upon these subjects there was evidence before the jury, which by reason of the charge they were cut off from considering, this court is constrained to reverse the judgment, and remand the cause for another trial to be had therein.

Judgment reversed.  