Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

16 S.C. Eq. 115

White v. Palmer

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Decided February 15, 1841

Court of Appeals of South Carolina · decided 1841-02-15

<p>1. A marriage settlement is not inoperative and void, between the parties to it, because it has never been recorded; neither they nor their personal representatives, can take advantage of their omission to record it.</p> <p>2. Where negroes have been given to one, upon his marriage, by the father of his wife, and shortly thereafter, a deed of settlement is executed by the donor (of the negroes) upon the wife. It was held to be void as to creditors, unless the execution of the deed had been with the knowledge and privity of the husband at the time, or accepted by him.</p> <p>3. A parol transfer of personal property might be made, with restrictions and limita, lions; but it is a species of loan not much to he encouraged.</p>

Decided 1841-02-15

Curia, per Dunkin, Chancellor.

¶1This Court concur generally in the circuit decree. But both parties are dissatisfied with the mode suggested by the commissioner for ascertaining the value of the tract, to two-thirds of which the complainant was entitled. On the reference ordered by the decree, this point will be regarded as open, and either party at liberty to adducé testimony on the subject. In other respects, the decree of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

¶2B. F. DUNKIN.

¶3We concur.

Wm. Harper J. Johnston,

¶4Dissenting opinion of

Johnson, Chancellor.

¶5Whatever *125may have been the circumstances attending the delivery of the slaves, Nancy and Fanny, by the defendant, Jesse Palmer, on the marriage of his daughter with James White, or whatever the object, whether as an absolute gift, or on conditions thereafter to be put in the form of the deed, I am clearly of opinion that if. White accepted of the deed of 30th April, 1822, by which the property in the slaves was limited to Mrs. White for life, and after her death to her issue, he was bound by it, and necessarily all claiming under him. The fact of the deed having been executed and recorded immediately after, and the absence of any proof that White complained of, or expressed any dissatisfaction concerning it, might, I incline to think, have been received as evidence of his knowledge of and assent to it, especially as the parol gift is only sustained by the fact of delivery and the recollections of the witness Lerre-bour, of a loose conversation after the lapse of eighteen years.

Hunt and Dozier, for the motion,Mr. , contra.
/16/sceq/115 · .json · Public domain