Case ID: scl_4/html/0098-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Waties, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
    NOV. 1806.
    Buffington v. Smith.
    A widow assigned all her right of dower, in, and to a certain tract of laud, by deed, but aid not warrant any certain or particular quantity of acres, or interest, and did not state in the deed any interest that she had, or right of dower; and it was held to be an agreement on speculation, though it appeared that the right of dower of the widow extended to a small part only of the tract of land in question, the right of dower in which, she had assigned. The assignee was held not to be entitled to recover back any part of the consideration money paid.
    Assumpsit on a note of hand, tried before Grimke, J., in Spar-tanburgh District. The defendant proved that the note was given for the plaintiff’s dower in 640 acres of land. The assignment of her dower was produced, by which it appeared that she had assigned all her right of dower, in, and to the said land, but did not warrant the same, nor set forth in the deed that she was entitled to dower, to the whole or any part of the land in question. The defendant then offered to prove that the plaintiff’s right of dower extended only to four or five acres of the land, and claimed a deduction in, proportion from the note sued. But the judge refused to admit the evidence offered to that purpose. The-motion in this court was for a new trial, on the ground that the evidente rejected in the District Court ought to have been admitted.
    Nott, in support of the motion ; Farrow, against it.
   Waties, J.,

delivered the opinion of all the judges, except Bay, J., absent, sick. The deed of assignment contains no covenant of warranty; nor does it specify any particular quantity oí interest which the plaintiff was entitled to assign ; but contains a general assignment of all her right of dower in the tract mentioned. The defendant seems to have bought her claim of dower, more or less, upon a speculation, and is not entitled in law or equity to reclaim any of the price stipulated to be paid.

New trial refused.