By the Court.
delivering the opinion.
The fundamental fact which lies at the bottom of this case,
If the negroes — bought of her son to extinguish this annuity — were more than it was worth, let the creditors stipulate for its payment, take the property or obtain a decree in Equity to re-sell the negroes for these, purposes.
And then, that she should have permitted them to remain in her son’s possession, under the parol agreement that they could continue there so long as he discharged the annuity, is there anything wrong in this ?
Suppose this verbal understanding be not a valid and binding contract, is it not sufficient to explain the possession,, and thereby rebut the inference of fraud ?
Upon the whole, we think the verdict was decidedly contrary to the evidence and the weight thereof, especially as to the damages.