Ramsay v. Lee

Title to slaves. In Virginia, in 1784, no gift of a slave was valid, unless in writing and recorded, although possession accompanied the gift. Qucm-e ? Whether five years’ possession is alone a good title, to enable a plaintiff to recover in detinue ? Lee v. Ramsay, 1 Cr. C. C. 435, affirmed.

Error to the Circuit Court of the district of Columbia, sitting at Alexandria, in an action of detinue, brought by Lee against Ramsay, for a slave named Frederick. The material facts appearing by the bill of exceptions taken by the defendant below, were, that Lee claimed, as trustee for Kennedy, under a deed from Wilson, duly acknowledged and recorded, and dated the 1st of December 1804. The question was whether, at the date of that deed, Wilson had a good title to the slave. Mrs. Gordon being the owner of the slave, in 1784, made a verbal gift of him to the defendant Ramsay, who was then only eight years old, and possession accompanied the gift; the slave remainded with the defendant and his mother, Mrs. Ramsay, in the family of Wilson, until the year 1790, when Mrs. Ramsay (claiming the slave as residuary legatee under the will of Mrs. Gordon, under the idea that the parol gift to her son was void), by deed of bargain and sale, conveyed the slave to Wilson, in consideration of five shillings, “ and divers other good causes.” Wilson held possession of the slave, under that deed, until the year 1805, when the defendant took him away, and had ever since detained him. The defendant and his mother, and the slave, had continued to live in the family of Wilson, from the year 1784 until the year 1805. The court below, upon the plaintiff’s motion, instructed the jury, “that if such a verbal gift was made to the defendant of the said slave, and such possession given to him as aforesaid, the gift is void in law, and opposes no bar to the recovery of the plaintiff.” The verdict and judgment in the court below being against the defendant, he brought his writ of error.