Case ID: scl_3/html/0005-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Waties, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CHERAW DISTRICT,
    FALL TERM,
    1794.
    Lyons v. Rogers.
    M'bere a slave was left in pledge, by A. with B., redeemable upon certain conditions, and A. sold the slave absolutely to C., who obtained' possession, and refused to deliver the slave to B.: held, that B. could not maintain trover against C., but that his remedy was by special action on the pase.
    Trover for a slave. Ragan, the owner, being indebted to the .plaintiff, gave him possession of the slave, and a bond, with condition that he should remain in the plaintiff’s possession, until he, Ragan, should replace the said slave by another as good, or satisfy the plaintiff for the money due to him. This bond was afterwards taken up; but Ragan gave the plaintiff another writing, called a deposit, purporting that the slave should remain with the plaintiff on terms similar to those above stated. Ragan, soon after this, sold the said slave absolutely to the defendant, and gave him a bill of sale ; and the defendant having got the slave into his possession, refused to deliver him up to the plaintiff, who demanded him : whereupon this action was brought.
    This evidence having been given for the plaintiff, the defendant’s gounsel moved for a nonsuit, eontonding that the plaintiff who appears to have only a special property in the negro, in question, is pot entitled to recover against the defendant in this action, who has the general property. And the case of Holliday v. Camsell and ¿White, 1 T. R. 653, was cited, and relied on as in point ; wherein it was decided, that a special property cannot give a right in this action against a general property: and that the plaintiff’s remedy should have been a special action of trespass on the case. Bac. Abr. Trover. C.
    Falconer, for defendant.
   Per cux.

Waties, J.

The plaintiff in this case has mistaken Ills action. The defendant has possession as the general and absolute proprietor of the thing in dispute, whereas the plaintiff is entitled to only a special, or qualified property. This action cannot be maintained by .the .proof offered, and, therefore, thp plaintiff must be nonsuited,

-- — , for plaiutiff.