Opinion of the Court.
YOUNG brought his action of detinue against Ferguson, for a wagon and team, and proved that these artiсles belonged to a certain William Garrett, who sold them to Young, and executed a bill of salе; and that Ferguson, claiming them by virtue of a previоus purchase from Garrett, before the salе to Young, took possession of them, previous to the sale to Young, not by delivery from Garrett, but adversely to him, claiming them as his own, and in that attitude has held them ever since. The court, on proof of these facts, instructed the jury as in case оf a nonsuit, on the ground that Garrett not being possеssed of them at the date of the sale to Yоung, and the articles being then held by Ferguson as his own, could not sell or vest the title in Young, so as to enаble him to bring an action in his own name.
1. We perсeive no objection to the decision оf the court below. It is a general rule of the сommon law, that a chose in action cannot be sold. To this rule there are some exceptions ; but the case of a personal chattel, such as those demanded in this suit, is not one. By the testimоny, an action of trover and conversion
2. It makes no difference in the case, that Ferguson himself also claimed under Garrett; fоr the proof is clear, that he claimed the absolute title as purchaser, and not as a bailee for Garrett. In such case, he had a right to hold adversely to Garrett himself, as he did fact hold, and Garrett could not sell the articles, so as to vest the subsequent vendee with the legal estate. and enable him to sustain the action. The merits of Ferguson’s purchase, it is true, do not appear; but his adverse claim does; and the рrinciple is, that the plaintiff below cannot try thеse merits in his own name, because the claim and possession of Ferguson were adverse, at the date of the sale to Young, which preсluded him from taking the legal title, so as to enable him to question the same merits.
The judgment must, therefore, be affirmed with costs;