The Yazoo City Whig and political register. (Yazoo City, Miss.) 1842-1844, 1843-06-16
Important Legal Decision.
Elizabeth NJ. Markham, ! Court OF ERRORS
VS.. and APPEALS,
John Merit ct. ais. January Term,
Bill for Dover. 1913.

VS.. and APPEALS,
Bill for Dover. 1913.
In argument, VIM. E. PUGm, ESQ.,, the
compliments counsel, contended that
The court below erred in refusing the
prayer of the complainant.
First-Because the deed, or. reinqu:sh-
ment of an infant feme couert Of her right
Of dover in her husbands lands, is at least
voidable.
Secondly--The court erred in refusing
dover in the lands of which the husband
was seized and possessed during coRerture,
Jointly with another who were partners as
merchants, but to whom the lands were
granted and to whom sold individually and
/ in their Individual names, and not as part.
ners in trade, with individual covenants Of
warranty against them and their heirs.
Thirdly-The courtEerred in receiving
the testimony of Vincent Galloway, the
joint owner Of the lands (Which are sought
to be subjected TO doweD with the com
plainant's late husband, because the test-
mony contradicts the deeds of the said Gal
laway, the witness, to said lands, which the
law will not allow, and because the witness
is interested in the result of this cause, in
this, that he had conveyed said lands with
covenants of warranty, both Of title g. quiet
enjoyment, and the success of the COM
plainant would impeach his covenants.
The court below erred, because it was in
proof that at the time the complainant sign
ed the deed, or conveyed her interest in the
lands in controversy, she was an infant feme
covert. Had she acquired these lands after
the marriage and independent Of her hus-
band, or the fee had vested in her before
, the marriage, it is clear that any conveyance
; of them by her, whenever the disability arts
ing from her coVerture should be removed
Then, can any iurist contend, that any one
/ who is incompetent 10 convey her own es
tate, can convey her interest in the estate
of another, TO be acquired upon q future
i contingency
But this point has been so long settled
; for the complainant, both in England ant
America, that it will now admit neither o
doubt or argument, shall therefore con
tent myself with referring the Court to
few Of the adiudicated cases in point. 3H
e Com. dig. $40 s. $50, first American from
f. the fifth London edition: Lambert on dow
er, IA g. las: Huhe VS.. Greenbank, Is
Yes. senr. 800: Shaw VS.. Boyd 5 Serg't
Rawle, 80: Phillips VS.. Green, Mar. Ky
s 8: Jones VS.. Todd, 2nd J. J. Mar. R. 36l
d Bool VS.. Mex, II Wend 10: M'Cartee VS.
E Yeller g. wife, 2nd Paige, r. 51l, and 3r
Is Paige, R., III.
Al The principle involved in the second e.
n ror as signed, think has been adiudicate
ID by this court favorable to the complainant /
i, the case Of Woodbridge VS.. Wilkins, 81
How. r.. $780, But lest | am mistaken j
the case cited, and for fear it does not meC
at the case at bar, feel it my duty 10 preser
of TO the court what think TO be the true rul
~ governing this cause. If by possibility I'll
-, = heir at law Of the husband could inherit Ii
ty land, the widow is entitled to dover, 81
on Com. dig. title dover A. 6, D. 493.
M the case now before the court the deeds al
made to LeneOus B. Markham (the la
husband of the complanant) and Vincel
He Galloway and their heirs; thereby clear
ow indicating that they, at the time of the pu
&c chases, did not think they were purchasir
OF as partners in trade; for in no one or i
,sS deeds is the firm name used. They ther
'ith fore purchased as joint tenants and not
,m- partners in trade. There are no articles
wer partnership proven TO have been entered
'sn- to BY the partners, either by the records
the county in which these lands lie, or
AY the production of the articles. presur
not parol evidence of a parol agreement our
/ Is not TO be received 10 control the tenure
.'S ~ which real estate is held, contrary to the
rip press words and legal import of words u.
AY in the deeds. This would be most d
per gerous rule Of evidence. and would unset
5. and place in doubt most of the titles
- which men hold their estates. In this G
No may venture TO say there we're no artic
of copartneTship entered into between
partners: no agreement that these Ia
should be held by them as personally.
ba1e not as realty, or at least none that this 6,
should notice. If mistake not IN The
of Green VS.. Green, decided in Ohio. c
tion, Rep. PA, there were articles of copart
sell ship entered into, containing an EXP
agreement that-tbe lands purchased bv
n. firm should be held and eniove6 as Der
-. ally and not as realty, and the land n
'a troversy in that case was purchased exp
z. ny for the purpose Of facilitating The part
If IN carrying on the legitimate business 81
~ firm and was absolutely necessary for
w same; and SO il is with all the other adj
Gated cases Chat have been able to