The case of Hinton v. Hinton, 1 Dev. & Bat. Eq. Rep. 587, referred to, and relied on, by the defendant’s counsel, is a direct authority in his favor. It was there held, that slaves advanced by parol to a daughter, by her father, upon her marriage, and remaining in the possession of her husband until the death of her father, intestate, were, under the act of 1806, (1 Rev. Stat. ch. 37, sec. 17,) an advancement at the time of the marriage, and belonged to the husband, notwithstanding the death of the wife before her father. This being so, with regard to the slaves which were put into the *58 lmsband’s possession, and which remained there until the father’s death, their issue, born during that period, must also belong to him. Indeed the plaintiff’s counsel has not'contended that any distinction can be made between the original stock and the issue, and we are clearly satisfied that none such exists. See Stallings v. Stallinys, 1 Dev. Eq. 298.

The judgment in favor of the plaintiff must be reversed, and according to the case agréed, a judgment of nonsuit must be entered.

Judgment reversed.