
    Kent v. Armistead.
    Argued March 16th, 1813.
    i. Detinue — Slaves—Declaration — Necessary Allegations,  — A declaration in detinue, for a slave, is insufficient to support the action, if it omit to state that the slave in question belonged to, or was the property of, the plaintiff: and such defect is not cured by verdict.
    In this case the declaration was in the following words : “The district composed of Richmond, Westmoreland, Lancaster and Northumberland counties, to wit: Lewis G. Armistead complains of Thomas Kent, in custody, &c., of a plea, that he render to him one negro slave named Spencer, of the value of 500 dollars, which from him he unjustly detains ; for that whereas the plaintiff, on the day of 1806, at the parish of , and county of Northumberland aforesaid, which is within the jurisdiction of this court, delivered to the defendant the said negro, of the value aforesaid, to be by him safely kept, and by him to be redelivered to the plaintiff, when thereto afterwards requested ; yet the defendant, although often requested, the said negro slave to the plaintiff hath not yet re-delivered, but the same to him to deliver hitherto hath and still doth refuse ; to his damage 500 dollars ; therefore he brings suit, &c.”
    The plea was non detinet. Several exceptions were taken at the trial, which need not here be mentioned, as no opinion was expressed upon them by this court. A verdict was found and judgment entered for the plaintiff; to which a writ of supersedeas was awarded.
    *Stanard for the plaintiff in error.
    Williams for the defendant.
    
      
      See generally, monographic note on “Detinue and Replevin” appended to Hunt v. Martin, 8 Gratt. 678.
    
   Saturday, March 20th, 1813. The president pronounced the court’s opinion, “that, (without deciding either of the points stated in the bills of exceptions,) the declaration is insufficient to support the action; it not being stated therein that the slave in question belonged to, or was the property of the plaintiff, now defendant.”

Judgment reversed, and entered in favour of the plaintiff in error. 
      
       Note. See 1 Chitty on pleading, 365; 3 Tuck. Bl. 152 Saund. 379, note 13.
     