
    Wm. Reed, vs. Wm. Price.
    The execution of the note was not denied; but the Defendant contended that it was given for-negro'es, to which the payee was not entitled; and that consequently there was a failure of' Consideration.
    It appeared that the negroes in question were the descendants of a woman, who was sent, with some others, to this state about twenty-seven years ago, by a Mr. Butler, ■who was then residing in Virginia. Mr. Butler intended to follow with his wife' and three children, but was prevented by death. His widow and children (two sons and a daughter) emigrated here soon after, and got possession of the negroes. The woman, whose children were purchased by Defendant, was held by Mrs. Butler, as her daughter’s property, for- six or seven years after her arrival here. On the death of Mrá. Bütler, her brother, Dr.-, took possession of the woman, and, held her as the property of his neice. On her intermarrying with Thomas Bulow7, the woman was delivered to him. He had possession of her for several years; and ultimately sold her and her children, to the Defendant. During the whole of this period, tliésé-negroes were regarded as the property of Mrs. Bulow. To gratify the Defendant, the elder Butler, (brother of Mrs. B.) consented to join in the bill of sale: the younger had left the state some time before and was supposed to be dead. Subsequently, however, to the sale, he returned; but has never pretended that he was entitled to the negroes, or any part of them. It- did not appear how the estate of the elder Butler had been-divided, or that any administration had ever been granted. Verdict for Plaintiff. From this there was an appeal.
   jT?ke ojpinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Huger,

The defence in this case is a failure of consideration in part for the note. It is contended that the younger Butler was entitled to a part Of thé negroes, and therefore his brother and sister could not sell more than their right; which was but two-thirds. What became of the'rest of the intestate’s'estate's, does not appear. That there were other negroes, has hot been 'denied. This fact, when coupled with the twenty-seveh years quiet possession Of Mrs. Bulow, raised an irresistible presumption that she got this hegro as her distributive part of the estate of her father; and that to her two brothers and mother, were allotted the other negroes. If this had not been so, it is difficult to account for the forbearance of the younger Butler. How old he was when he first came to this state, twenty-seven years ago, does not appear. Since that period (whatever may hgve been his age then) he has had ample time to prosecute his rights, if he had any. In the case of M'Clure and Hill, (2 Con. De. 420) it was decided that thirty years possession of land was sufficient foundation for the presumption of a grantfromthe state; and the judge who delivered die opinion of the court, suggested that twenty would be sufficient. If in twenty years a grant-may be presumed against the' state, after twenty-seven, the younger Butler may very well be regarded as having relinquished his claim to the property in question. If this presumption could require any further support, it is to be found in the fact, that Defendant himself has held these negroes long enough to perfect his title by possesion.

The motion for a new trial is refused.

Johnson, J\rott, Richardson, Colcoclc, Justices concurred.  