
    *Jordan and Others v. Murray.
    [Saturday, November 7, 1801.]
    Slaves — Parol Gift of — Evidence—Statute.—Although under the act of 1758, evidence of a parol gift of slaves cannot be given, yet such testimony may be received, in order to prove five years’ possession, so as to bar the plaintiff’s demand.
    Jordan and others, broug'ht detinue against Murray, for some slaves. Plea, non detinet, and the act of limitations. Issue. Upon the trial' of the cause, the jury found a special verdict, which stated, that John Armstead, in 1763, made a parol gift of a slave, by the name of Nan, to William Russell, (father of the female plaintiffs,) who had married Sarah, the daughter of the said John Armstead, and mother of the plaintiffs. That, about the ye.ar 1765, the said Nan, who had been in the possession of the said William Russell from the date of the parol gift aforesaid, had issue a daughter by the name of Moll. That, in 1769, the said John Armstead made his will, and thereby devised the said slave Moll, and her increase, to his said daughter Sarah, for her life, and at her death to be equally divided among her children then living: That after the death of the said John Armstead, and the recording of his will, John Murray, the testator of the defendant, purchased the said slave Moll, of the said William Russell, for a valuable consideration: That the said Moll is the mother of the other slaves in the declaration mentioned, who were born after Murray’s purchase aforesaid: That the said slaves are in the possession of the defendants : That the said Sarah survived her husband, but died within five years next before the institution of the suit: That the said William Russell was in possession of Nan under the parol gift aforesaid, for more than five years before the purchase of Moll by the said Murray, as aforesaid.
    The District Court gave judgment in favour of the defendant, and the plaintiffs petitioned this Court for a writ of superse-deas to that judgment, and assigned the following reason : “That, as by the act of 1758, parol gifts of slaves are void, and by the decision of this Court, evidence of a parol gift is inadmissible; the judgment of the District Court ought to be reversed.”
    
      
      Slsves — Parol Gift of — Statute.—The principal case is cited in Merrit v. Smith, 6 Leigh 493; Cross v. Cross, 9 Leigh 251. See Turner v. Turner. 1 Wash. 139.
      Same — Adverse Possession. — The principal case is cited in Hudsons v. Hudson, 6 Munf. 357, for the proposition that, actual adverse possession of slaves for more than five years will give a title to a defendant, as well as a plaintiff, without pleading the statute of limitations. The principal case is cited in this connection in Beasley v. Owen, 3 Hen. & M. 455. See Garth v. Barksdale, 5 Munf. 101.
    
   *PENDUBTON, President,

after stating the case, delivered the resolution of the Court as follows:

In Turner v. Turner, 1 Wash. 139, the plaintiff claimed under a parol gift, and the Court below admitted evidence of such gift, which this Court adjudged could not be admitted under the act of 1758, [c. 5, 7 Stat. Larg. 237.]

Although, under that act, the parol gift did not pass the property in the slave Nan to Russell; yet, this possession of more than five years in Armstead’s life-time, barred the title of the latter, and prevented his power of disposition by his will, more especially in this case of a bona fide purchaser from the possessor.

The supersedeas is, therefore, unanimously denied. _  