
    Catharine & Benjamin Turner v. Clear Turner, Executrix of Sampson Turner Deceased.
    October Term, 1792.
    Slaves — Gift of, Not by Deed or Will — Effect under Act of 1758. — under the Act of 1758, entitled, “an Act for preventing fraudulent gifts of slaves,” a gift of a slave, not made by deed, or will, though possession was delivered, is void.
    Fraudulent Gift of Slaves — Statute Preventing — Effect of. — The Act passed in 1787, entitled, “an Act to explain and amend the Act for preventing fraudulent gifts of slaves,” is prospective in its operation, and cannot effect gifts of slaves made prior to its passage.
    The appellee, brought an action of det-inue against the appellants in the County Court, in 1783, for the recovery of two slaves. The declaration states a possession in the testator, and in the plaintiff as executrix. üpon the general issue, the plaintiff offered to give in evidence, a parol gift of the slaves in dispute to Sampson Turner, by his father, a few years previous to the institution of the suit; which being admitted by the court, an exception was taken to the opinion, and a verdict being rendered for the plaintiff below, at a court held in the year 1789, the defendant appealed to the District Court of Suffolk, where the judgment being affirmed, an appeal was prayed to this court.
    
      
      Slaves — Gift of, Not by Deed or Will — Effect under Act of 1758. — See the principal case cited in Jordan v. Murray, 3 Call 80, and note ; Newby v. Blakey, 3 Hen. &M. 59; Merrit v. Smith, 6 Leigh493; Beasley v. Owen, 3 Hen. & M. 456; Cross v. Cross, 9 Leigh 251. See monographic note on “Fraudulent and Voluntary Conveyances” appended to Cochran v. Paris, 11 Gratt. 348; monographic note on “Gifts” appended to Barker v. Barker, 3 Gratt. 344.
    
    
      
      Statutes — Construction.—The principal case is cited in Com. v. Beaumarchais, 3 Call 168 ; Elliott v. Lyell, 3 Call 283 ; Duval v. Malone, 14 Gratt. 29".
    
   The PRESIDENT.

The court are of

opinion, that the judgment of the County Court is erroneous, in admitting the appel-lee, to give evidence of a parol gift of the slaves in dispute, supposed to have been made by Joseph Turner, the father, to his son Sampson Turner, the testator of the appellee; since if such gift had been really made, it being subsequent to the year 1758, no estate in the slaves passed to the said Sampson thereby, for want of a deed, or will in writing, according to the act of Assembly, passed in the year 1758, intituled, “an act to prevent the fraudulent gifts of slaves.” And although it should appear, that the gift in this case was such, as was meant to be declared valid, either by the act passed in the year 1785 intituled, iuan act to prevent frauds and perjuries,” or the act passed in the year 1787, intituled, “an act to explain and amend the acts for preventing -fraudulent gifts of slaves;” yet nevertheless, the proof in the present case, was inadmissible, and the gift void; both of those acts, being prospective in their operation, and not retrospective of cases happening before; especially as to this supposed gift, on which the suit was commenced in 1783.

The judgment of the District Court is therefore erroneous, and must be reversed. The judgment of the County Court must also be reversed, the verdict set aside, and a new trial awarded; upon which, no evidence is to be admitted, to prove a gift of the slaves in dispute, except a deed in writing, or last will as the said act of 1758 required. _  