This is an action of detinue, brought to recover two negro boys, the children of the slave Peg. The plaintiff by the deed mentioned in the case, conveyed Peg and her two children (the boys now sued for) to his sister Anny Reed, with the assent of her husband, Hugh Reed. She was- to hold them in the same manner, that she had held the slave Burnett (given in exchange) under her farther’s will: The slaves Peg and her two sons were then taken into the possession of Hugh Reed. The deed contains a de-feasance or condition subsequent, that if the “legatees” ('children of Anny Reed we suppose) do release to him Walker; ail’the interest which they have in the slave Burnett, under theirg.rondfather’s will,then the conveyance of Pegand her children shall become absolute, permanent and forever. If, however, the children of Anny Reed should refuse to release or transfer to Walker their right' in the slave Burnett, then each party to the deed was to be at liberty to take back *155 the slave or slaves given by him or her in exchange, and hold the same as if the said deed had never been executed.

The terms of the contract in the deed are certainly very badly expressed. But we .think, from our reading of it, that we can distinctly make out-the meaning and intention efihe. parties to it to be, as before set forth. The plaintiff did not, on the trial, shew in evidence, that the “ heirs,” as they are called in the instrument, ever refused to execute to him a release of their interest in the slave Burnett. The title conveyed to Mrs. Reid, consequently, has not been divested. We therefore think, that, at all events, -the plaintiff has no right as yet, to retake Peg and her children, .under the condition contained in the deed of exchange. Hence, although we think Harris could not be deemed, upon the evidence, the plaintiff’s agent, and without deciding the effect of the plaintiff’s conduct upon his title, if he had any, we -hold, that the .judgment must be affirmed.

Per Cue jam, Judgment affirmed.