We concur with his Honor, that the plaintiff failed to show title in his intestate, to the slave sued for; consequently, that the action could not bo maintained.
The intestate claimed the slave under the will of her father, Elihu King, and the case depends upon its construction. In regard to this, we have some difficulty. A prominent intention on the part of the testator was to confirm the gift of all the property, including the slaves that he had, from time to time, put into possession of his several children; but, in reference to the slaves that he had put into the possession of his daughter Asenith, (the pl-dntiff’s intestate, and the wife of Sharpe,) he intended to annex a qualification, so as to subject the two children of the negro woman Yiolet (Amanda and Susan) to the payment of a note of $800 that Sharpe owed him, and, in attempting to do so, he has suffered the one idea to become involved in the other, which produces the confusion. We think, however, that it is sufficiently apparent, that, in the event that Sharpe paid off the debt, (for which purpose he was allowed four years,) the gift of the slaves to his wife was confirmed, and was to remain undisturbed in like manner, as the gifts to the other children; and it was only in the event that Sharpe failed to pay the debt, that Amanda and Susan were to be valued, and their valuation put as a credit on the note, which was all the benefit he expected Sharpe to take; and the negro woman *523and her child Amanda, were to vest in ihe executors, for the purpose of aiding Mrs. Sharp, and in trust to let her have the use ami profits, and then for her heirs; but the girl Susan was, In that event, taken away from Mrs. Sharpe, and given to his daughter Mary, with a proviso, that, if she failed to get Susan, she was to have ¡§200 in her stead; and the way in which it was expected she might fail, was obviously by the fact of the gift to Mrs. Sharpe becoming confirmed and unqualified by Sharpe’s paying the debt within the time allowed.
This he did; so the gift to his wife stood confirmed, and the contingent provisions never took effect. The result is, that upon the payment of the money, the gift to his wife became absolute, and the property vested in Sharp, the husband. Mrs. Sharpe, therefore, had no title, nor has her administrator any.
Judgment affirmed.