It is not a very easy task to lay down a general rule, to decide what special rights in property wiil support this action, nor is it necessary in this case. The Judge properly stated to the Jury, that if the parol gift to Justice, was prior to the act of 1806 (Rev. ch. 701) it «as good. I concur with him too in saying, that*if it was since, drcnmstanced as this case is, Justice can sustain this action.
High, «dio was the owner of the property in dispute, died in the year 1813. if he made no will, Justice was entitled to the slave as an advancement, under the act of 1806. If he made a will, as it appears he did, though it has not been given in evidence, it is likely that he either confirmed the title of the property in Justice, or bequeathed it to some other person. If the latter is the fact, Justice, and Pullen, claiming under him, have held the property adverse to such person for many years. So that in either event, the Jury were authorised to infer a title in Justice, which, accompanied with possession, is sufficient to support this action.
As to the statute of limitations, it can he no bar in favor of Pullen. He held the property, both in fact, and in law, under Justice. The act of 1826 declares, that “ when any person shall have put into the possession of his child any slave, &c. which shall remain in possession of such child, at the time of the death of such donor, such slave shall be considered as an advancement *472to such child.” The object of the act would be defeated, if the child’s possession could bo ripened into title, by a continuance of three years.
But if an express parol gift was proved by Pullen, it would seem, that a three years adverse possession would complete his title. . But I give no opinion on this point, as the, case does not require it. No gift is proved to Pullen ; he relies upon an implied one, arising from possession.
As to the estoppel spoken of on the Defendants, it may be observed, that whether they had notice or not, they could not have a better title than Pullen himself had, as long as they claimed under him. The only difference between them would be, that the Defendant’s right, although it would not be better than .Pullen’s when first, derived from him, yet might be ripened into title, by an adverse possession of sufficient length, whether they had notice of Justice’s title or not.
Per Curiam. — Judgment affirmed.