
    John J. Jenkins and another, Administrators with the will annexed of Alexander Leo Fenwick, deceased, v. Charles Theriot.
    Action to recover certain slaves purchased by defendant from a third person, in whose possession they were at the time of the sale. It was proved that they had been brought into this State by the vendor as the administrator of the succession of plaintiffs’ ancestor, and had remained in his possession several years ; that they had been seized under execution as the property of the vendor, and offered for sale, but wer&not sold in consequence of the general notoriety of the fact, that they were not the.property of the party in whose hands they were seized ; and that defendant was present when they were offered for sale, probably with a view to bid for them: ifeWp.'that the facts warrant the presumption that the defendant was aware of the defect in, the title of his vendor. Judgment for the plaintiffs.
    Appeal from the District Court of St. Martin, King, J. v.
    
      Magill, for the plaintiffs.
    
      Voorhies, for the appellant.
   Bullard. J.

This case is similar to the two last decided of the same plaintiffs v. Thenet et al. (9 Rob. 34), and the Same v. Du-tel, (9 lb. 36). It was instituted to recovhr other slaves belonging to the same estate, and sold at' private sale to the defendant. The evidence of notice to the defendant of the title of the estate of Alexander Leo Fenwick, is somewhat different. It is not shown that he was personally informed by the witness, as sworn to in the two last cases. But it is shown that the slaves had been seized by the sheriff as the property of Joseph Fenwick; that they were offered for sale, but not sold; that it was a matter of general notoriety on that occasion, that the slaves did not belong to Joseph Fenwick, and that the defendant, Theriot, was present. The witness testifies that he had conversations with several persons who knew the fact, and, in his conversations with them, announced the true ownership. Witness’ father did the same, but does not know that Theriot was present at these conversations, or that he knew that the slaves did not belong to Fenwick.

The circumstance that the slaves could not be sold by the sheriff, in consequence of a general knowledge of Fenwick’s want of title, when Theriot was present, probably with a view to bid for the slaves, which he afterwards purchased, furnishes such a presumption of his knowledge of the defect of title in his vendor, that we do not feel authorised to say that the court erred in giving judgment against him for the slaves.

Judgment affirmed.  