Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

7 H. & J. 257

Bohn v. Headley

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided June 15, 1826

Court of Appeals of Maryland · decided 1826-06-15

<p>A deed of gift of personal property from a father, (who was not indebted at the time,) to his child, executed, acknowledged and recorded, according to law, conveying the property to the child, with a provision that the donor was to remain in its possession and use during life — Held, to be valid both at common law and under the statute of 13 JCliz.</p> <p>Such a deed is not within the statute of 27th Bliz. that statute not relating to conveyances of personal, hut of real property.</p> <p>H, being entitled by deed, at her father’s death, to certain slaves, the father sold them as slaves for life to II, who took possession, and used them as his own — Held, in an action of trover, brought at the father’s death by II, against I?, for the slaves, that there must be other evidence of a conversion of the slaves by B, to entitle H to recover.</p> <p>After the date of the said deed H, who was then a single woman, married, The donor, her father, died during her coverture, and afterwards her husband died, without doing any thing to recover the possession of the slaves — Held, that the right to them survived to the wife.</p> <p>The issue of slaves born during the existence of a tenancy for life, belong to the tenant for life, per Archer, J.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently October 1814

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1826-06-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Dorsey, J.

¶1delivered the opinion of the Court. The only question brought before the court below in this case, connected with this appeal, was, whether the voluntary deed of gift of Thomas Tucker to the appellee, was void by the statutes 13th and 27th of Elizabeth, against fraudulent conveyances? We think the court decided correctly on the point submitted for their determination, according to the testimony in the cause. The deed of gift was duly executed, acknowledged and recorded, in 1796, and fourteen years afterwards the donor sold the negro, given by said deed, to the appellant. It is not shown that in 1796, or between that time and the year 1810, Thomas Tucker owed one cent to any human being. Upon what principle then can it bo contended that his deed of gift was void under the 13th of Elizabeth? It is not a conveyance of lands, tenements or hereditaments, and therefore not a case embraced by the provisions of the statute of 27th of Elizabeth. But the court below, presuming from the manner in which the pray-*272©r was made to them, that their establishing the validity of this deed removed all impediments to the appellee’s right of recovery, instructed the jury that he was entitled to recover. A new objection hath been raised to this instruction, to which the attention of the county court does not appear to have been called, viz. that there was no evidence offered to the jury from Which they could find either an actual or an implied conversion. This the court think is a fatal objection to the opinion given by the court below, and to the recovery which has been had thereon, they therefore reverse their judgment.

¶2JUDGMENT REVERSED,

¶3And a procedendo, on motion of the Appellee’s Counsel, was ‘refused.

/7/hj/257 · .json · Public domain