Laspeyre v. M'Farland, 4 N.C. 187, 1 Taylor 187 (1817)

July 1817 · Supreme Court of North Carolina

4 N.C. 187, 1 Taylor 187

LASPEYRE against M'FARLAND.

• TROVER for a slave, of which the Plaintiff had been in possession for fourteen years. The Defendant showed no title in himself, but offered in evidence a marriage settlement entered into by the Plaintiff, his wife, and William Dasns, whereby this slave among others, was con- . - J ° ’ veyed to Davis as a trustee, to permit the wife of the Plaintiff to have the labour and profits, and to allow the slave to bé under the direction of the Plaintiff. Thé Plaintiff was nonsuited ⅛ the Superior Court, and a mo* to, set the nonsuit aside, was referred to this Court.

Trover cao* possession of where it ip. Pears Aatthe. legal title is in another, & puunqffha» only a trust,

M^Kay, for the Defendant.

Property, either general or special, is necessary to main* tain trover. The Plaintiff has but an equitable title* which the Court cannot notice. The legal title is by the deed vested in Ddiiis, the trustee.^*

3^-ordecah The Defendant relies upon-'no title, and' must, therefore, be taken as a stranger and Wrongdoer; against whom the Plaintiff has a sufficient propei ty to maintain trover. Even possession alorie is sufficient for this purpose, and here it is expressly stated to have been, with the permission of the owner.^†

* 11 Johns. 7 T. Rep. 43. 2 Esp. Rep. 500. 2 Str. 1078. 2 Johns. 221. 6 Term 684.

† 5 Coke, Palmer's case Cro. Eliz. 819. 2 Saun. 47. c.

Ruirifr, J.

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This is an action of trover for a negro slave;—and the question is, Whether it is the proper action or not ? By the marriage settlement, the title of the slave is in the trustee, who permitted the Plaintiff, however, to have the possession. It is one of the characteristic distinctions between this action and trespass, that the latter maybe maintained on possession ; the former only on property and the right of possession. Trover is, to personals, what ejectment is as to the realty. In both, title is indispensable. It is true, that as possession is the strongest evidence of the ownership of chattels, property may be presumed from possession. And, therefore, a Plaintiff may not, in all cases, be bound to show a good title by conveyances against all the world, but may recover in trover upon such presumption, against a Wrongdoer. Yet it is but a presumption, and cannot stand when the contrary is shown. Here it is completely rebutted by the deed, which shows the title to be in another and not in the Plaintiff. As to the Plaintiff’s interest under the deed, that is only a trust, and we cannot take notice of it. It is nothing here. A Court of Law can only, regard legal rights ; and if the Plaintiff wishes to come into this Court, upon his title, he must get the aid of his trustee, »nd proceed in his name,

Wherefore, I think the nonsuit must stand.