
    
      Hay and Cutlar vs. Spillar's executors.
    
    SPILL. ATEI by deed dated the 4th of February, 1791, conveyed to his daughter Elizabeth the Negroes in question, to hold for and during the term of her natural lfe„ She afterwards married futon, and he. by deed conveyed the same Negroes to Hay-an d Cutlur forever, in trust for hisavife for her natural, life, remainder to her heirs, A witness was called to be questioned whether or not Spillar consented to or encouraged the making of this latter deed. It was objected that this question should not be put to him, for that the answer tended to shew Spillar had parted with his reoerelonary interest; which ought not to be proved otherwise than by deed. Reversions of real estates cannot be passed mthoiv deed because they cannot be passed by livery o seizen — f5 13:. !L.oru. The same reason applies equally to a re?' yersion on r, .nried roí a pera-mal chattel, wuere the property is in that sivvn«o : \u,t it may be passed by duliv< ry, that serves as a notorious sy.ri- ■ 1 oi ;.ho transí er, but the same cannot be said of a reversion. ,
   Iluf Judge..

The. question proposed is proper; a reversion, like this may lie passed by parol without deed.

Thu question was asked and the jury found for the plaintiffs. •A question was made upon the effect of the first deed, whether it conveyed the absolute property or only for life; hut the Judge gave no opinion upon-that point: he directed the raw to coneA der whether the parol evidence satisfied them that Spillar meant by consenting to Tutoi-s deed to pass his Interest, if any he hado

S¡>nere de hoc,.  