Opinion
(Spring Riding, 1803.)
There is no privity in law between the vendor and vendee of a chose in action, so as to make a suit brought by the latter available to prevent the operation of the statute of limitations against a suit afterwards brought by the former.
DETINUE for negroes. It appeared these negroes had been given by will to the widow of the testator for life, and after her death to the plaintiffs. She married, and her husband sold them to a person under whom defendant claimed. And after her death, whilst in the possession of defendant, or the vendee, these plaintiffs sold them. The purchaser sued and was nonsuited, because his action was improperly commenced. Then plaintiffs sued in the present action, but before its commencement the three years had elapsed, and the question now was whether the verdict which had been given in the former action could now be given in evidence; and after much argument the Court decided it could not, for that between the vendor and vendee of a chose in action there is no privity which the law will recognize.