Opinion
(Fall Riding, 1797.)
A recovery in trover vests the property in the defendant; and a bar in trover or verdict for the defendant is, in an action on a warranty of title, prima facie and most generally a proof of property in him; but it is not conclusive, and may be rebutted by showing that some other fact besides the right of the property occasioned the verdict for the defendant.
CASE upon a warranty on the sale of negroes to the intestate; which negroes were gotten out of his possession by the guardian of two orphan children, by the name of Scull, he claiming them as the property of the children; whereupon an action of trover was brought by the intestate against the guardian for the recovery of these negroes; and there was a verdict for the defendant, upon the plea of not guilty.
A recovery in trover vests the property in the defendant; and a bar in trover or verdict for the defendant is prima facie and most generally a proof of property in him. It is not, however, conclusive, as such verdict may have been upon the ground that the defendant had not possession of the thing, and so had not then converted or held possession, having a lien upon the thing until paid for the work he had done upon it; or because he may have had a particular interest in the thing for years, or the like, which has since expired. In all these cases, and others that might be instanced, the defendant would be entitled to a verdict, and yet the plaintiff, in an after action, be entitled to recover as having the property. A verdict for the defendant is, therefore, only prima facie evidence of property in him, which will stand till the contrary be proven by showing the particular fact in evidence that occasioned the verdict to be for the defendant.
There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff.
NOTE. — See account Garland v. Goodloe, post, 351; but see Saunders v. Hamilton, post, 226, 282; Pearse v. Templeton, post, 379; Shober v. Robinson, 6 N.C. 33; Williams v. Shaw, 4 N.C. 630, 197; Coble v. Welborn, 13 N.C. 388; Martin v. Cowles, 19 N.C. 101, contra. As to the effect of a verdict against the plaintiff in an action of detinue on the plea of non detinet, see Long v. Baugas, 24 N.C. 290.