Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

44 S.C.L. 404

Tomlinson v. Tomlinson

Court of Appeals of South Carolina · decided 1857-05-15

BEFORE GLOYER, J., AT CHESTERFIELD, SPRING TERM, 1857. Tbis was an action of trover for tbe alleged conversion of fifteen negroes. Tbe plaintiff was tbe father of Henry M. Tomlinson, deceased, tbe intestate of tbe defendants. In 1833, Henry M. Tomlinson married tbe defendant Martba, and during that year tbe negroes were allowed by tbe plaintiff to go into bis possession in North Carolina, where father and son both resided.

Decided 1857-05-15

¶1Tbe opinion of the Court was delivered by

O’Neall, J.

¶2Tbe defendants are tbe administrators of Henry'M. Tomlinson, deceased. They undertook, and were allowed on tbe trial of tbis cause to show Ms insolvency, so *406that slaves found in bis possession, and claimed to be tbe property of tbe plaintiff, might, on account of tbe legal fraud on creditors, be adjudged to be bis property. Tbe case of Crosby vs. Shelton, cited in Chappell vs. Brown, 1 Bail. 531, ruled that an administratrix could not set up tbe indebtedness of ber intestate, as a ground to defeat bis gift of chattels. This ruling was recognised, and affirmed in Anderson vs. Belcher, 1 Hill, 249, note. These decisions proceed upon tbe ground, that tbe administrator represents tbe person of bis intestate, and cannot set up anything which be could not. Here beyond all doubt tbe deceased could not set up bis own indebtedness and insolvency, against bis father’s claim to property, in bis possession.

¶3Tbe motion for a new trial must therefore be granted on tbe seventh ground, and it is accordingly so ordered.

WhitNer, Glover and MüNro, JJ., concurred.

¶4Motion granted.

/44/scl/404 · .json · Public domain