
    George H. Varner v. Anna Gregg.
    The court instructed the jury, that even if it was proved that Mrs. G. did give the slave sued for to Mrs. V., that upon Mrs. V.’s death the legal title was in Mrs. V.’s administrator, and he alone could maintain the suit. Held, that this charge precluded all possibility of the plaintiff (V.) to recover, however the jury might regard the question as to whether the slave was or was not given by the defendant (G.) to the plaintiff (V.), and was error in the court below.
    In error from the circuit court of Franklin county; Hon. Stanhope Posey, judge.
    This was an action of trover brought by Varner against Mrs. Gregg for the recovery of a slave alleged by Varner to have been given to him, the husband of Amelia, daughter of Mrs. Varder, she the said Amelia having died without leaving issue, before the commencement of this suit.
    The following charges, given by the court below, are assigned as error: —
    “ That even if they believed from the evidence Mrs. Gregg did give the slave sued for to Mrs. Varner, that upon Mrs. Varner’s death the legal title was in Mrs. Varner’s administrator, and he alone can sustain this suit, and they can find for defendant.
    “ That if the suit is not brought by Varner as administrator, and they believe even the property sued for was given to Mrs. Varner, they must find for defendant.”
    The error assigned is the giving these instructions by the court.
    The jury found a verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiff Varner prayed this writ of error.
    
      G. H. Sellers for appellant.
    
      H. Cassedy for appellee.
   Per Curiam.

This was an action of trover brought by the plaintiff in error against the defendant, to recover the value of a slave alleged to have been given by the defendant to the plaintiff’s wife, who died in the year 1849, without issue, the plaintiff, her husband, surviving her.

On the application of the defendant, the court instructed the jury, “ that even if it was proved that Mrs. Gregg did give tha slave sued for to Mrs. Varner, that upon Mrs. Varner’s deat* the legal title was in Mrs. Varner’s administrator, and he alone could sustain the suit.” Another instruction to the same effect was given; and the verdict was necessarily for the defendant.

This precludes all possibility to the plaintiff to recover, however the jury might regard the question as to whether the slave was given by the defendant to the plaintiff’s wife, which was the main point of controversy.

. The instructions given by the court, in behalf of the defendant, are in opposition to the rule as held by this court at this term, in the cases of Lyon v. Knott and Rabb v. Griffin, ante.

The judgment is reversed, and the case remanded.  