Case ID: tenn_12/html/0168-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Catron, Ch. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Batte vs. Stone.
    A deed of gift for slaves is void as to a subsequent purchaser, unless proved by two witnesses.
    This was an action of detinue, commenced in the circuit court of Giles county, by the defendant in error, to recover from the plaintiff in error, a slave by the name of Mary. From the bill of exceptions, the following facts appear: The father of the defendant in error, executed to him a deed of gift for the slave in controversy, to which there were three subscribing witnesses. The deed was proved within the time prescribed by law by one of the subscribing witnesses, and registered. At the time of its execution, defendant in error was a minor, living with his father. Sometime in 1827, the father of defendant in error, sold the slave to the plaintiff in error, for a valuable consideration. Upon the trial of the cause, the defendant in error offered an office copy of the deed of gift, in evidence. The production of the original was waived, but the deed was objected to because it was only proved by one witness. The court overruled the objection, to which exception was taken, and the defendant in error having a verdict and judgment, the defendant below appealed in error to this court.
    
      Bramlitt and Rivers, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Craighead and Pillow, for defendant.
   Catron, Ch. J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

The main question in this cause is, whether the deed of gift, by virtue of which plaintiff claims title to the negro sued for, was properly admitted as evidence to the jury-

It was made in 1824, from the plaintiff’s father to him, and purports to have had three witnesses to it. At May term, 1824, it was proved in the Sumner county court, by Edwárd Elliff, one of the subscribing witnesses, and certified for registration; and on the first of July, 1824, on this probate, registered. An office copy was offered, objected to because proved by one witness only, but received. Was the proof of one witness sufficient to authorize the registration?

The first act requiring two witnesses to instruments required to be registered, is that of 1805, ch. 16, sec. 2, which applies to the settlement of slaves, or other personal property, in consideration of marriage.

The act of 1807, ch. 85, sec. 3, is, in this case, the governing provision. In the mode of proof to authorize registration, there had been no difference in cases of transfers of lands or slaves, before 1807, and it is manifest the act of that year did not intend to make any.

As to lands, it is clear, two witnesses are required; the deed is to be proven by at least two subscribing witnesses, “and all bills of sale or other instruments of writing for the transfer of personal property, shall be so proven.”

The seventh section provides for the registration of deeds theretofore made on the proof of only one witness, because, until 1805, in no case had more than one been required.

The proof by one witness did not authorize the registration of the deed; consequently the copy offered in evidence, was incompetent to go to the jury.

The judgment will be reversed, and the cause remanded for another trial.

Judgment reversed.