Case ID: scl_4/html/0392-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Smith, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
    MAY, 1810.
    Robert Carnes v. Jane Carnes, Adm’x of Wm. Carnes.
    A writ of partition, in case of intesfacy, was returned, and judgment thereupon given, that the intestate’s lands, of which his widow was entitled to a third part, should vest altogether in her, and that she, and her second husband, she having married again, should pay the value of the two thirds to which she was not entitled, to the next of kin, who were entitled thereto. Afterwards the second husband died, and a writ of partition was sued out by the next of kin of the second hus. band, to have partition of the same land ; and it was adjudged, that by the return and judgment upon the writ of partition brought by the wi--dow of the first husband, the whole estate vetted in her, and no part in her second husband, although he might have expended his own money in paying the value of two thirds ot the land.
    Motion to reverse a decision made by Brevard, J., in Lancaster district, on a writ of partition, the question was, whether a tract of land, or any part thereof, ought to be included in the writ. The facts were these : Jane Carnes, widow of the intestate, had been, before her marriage with the intesfate, married to James White, after whose death she married Carnes, and with her second husband, sued out a writ of partition of the estate of her first husband, who died intestate. The commissioners returned specially, that the land now in dispute was worth $1500, and the personal estate worth $2320 87, making an aggregate of $3820 87. Of this sum, Mrs. Carnes claimed, and was entitled, to $1276 62; and Mary White, the only child of the intestate, White, was entitled to $¿553 ¿5, and recommended that thé lands should he vested in Mrs. Carnes, as also $600 of the personal estate. The balance of the personal estate was assigned to Marv White; and the com- ° "i ’ missioners further directed, that Carnes and his wiie should pay to Mary White $823 38, for her part of the real estate.
    Judgment was entered accordingly, expressly vesting the land in Jane Carnes, and her heirs.'and directing that Mary White should recover against the said William Carnes,, and Jane, his wife, the said sum of $823 88.
    In the present writ of partition, Robert Carnes claimed part of the land so vested in Jane, as real estate of William Carnes, her second husband, who also died intestate, as his next of kin, contending, that as William Carnes was adjudged to pay the sum of $823 38, to Mary White, for her share of the real estate of James White, he having paid that sum, ought to be regarded as purchaser, or, at least, as a joint purchaser of the samp.''
    Brevard, J., from a view and consideration of the record in the partition case, concerning White’s estate, was of opinion that the whole interest vested in Mrs. Carnes, and no part in William Carnes.
    The motion, on appeal, was submitted by Blanding, for the de-mandant, and Richardson, contra.
    
   May 1st, 1810.

Smith, J.,

delivered the resolution of the court, confirming the decision of the District Court. The judgment of the court on the partition of White’s estate, expressly vests the estate in question, in Jane Carnes. The court, which rendered that judgment, might, perhaps, have vested the estate in William Carnes, and his wife, jointly, or ordered the $323 38, to be paid out of the wife’s estate. But this was not done ; and it must be presumed that it was the intention of the court to vest the land in the wife, solely and absolutely. > And it ought to be regarded as a reasonable provision for her use and benefit, not subject to the disposal of the husband, especially as he received by her a considerable personal estate, nearly equal, to what they were to pay for the part of the land to which Mary White was entitled.

Motion rejected.