The Yazoo City Whig and political register. (Yazoo City, Miss.) 1842-1844, 1843-06-16

where dover has been refused in lands held !
by partners. The case at bar does not come |
within the rule laid down in the case Of ,
Green vs.. Green, or any OF the cases therein
cited. In that case the deed, and the art- |
licles of copaHnership showed they purcha- !
sed as partners, and for the necessary con-
Quoting with success and profit the business
of the firm. Here they purchased as indi-
viduals and joint. tenants. and not with an
eye to the using the lands purchased in car
rying on the business of the firm; nor were
they ever used in that way. The business
of the firm did not require them They
were merchants, and had no use for lands,
except probably house and LOT in the place
where they done business, in which TO carry
on their trade. Their acts throughout show
the quo amino with which they purchased,
enjoyed, and conveyed. They buy to them
and their heirs, and they sell as joint ten
ants, with individual covenants of title, and
call upon the wife to relinqush dover. If
they held and enjoyed these lands as part
ners, and viewed them as personally only,
and for the necessary conducting their le-
climate business, no right of dover could
ever have vested, and there could be no
necessity of calling upon the wife to relin-
quisb ;-relinquish what? That which she
never had. Well did they know the pur-
chasing of these lands was foreign TO the
business of the partnership, and that upon
the demise of the husband, the right of dover
accrued, and would upon the contingency
of the prior death of the husband, vest in the
wife surviving. And hence il is in everV
4 en- a.;
right by calling upon the wife and making
her party to the deeds. Can it be doubt
ed, that if Markham had died siezed e. pos
sessed of these lands, under the deeds con-
veying them TO Lineous B. Markham g.
Vincent Galloway and their heirs, that the
undivided half or moielv would have de.
scended and vested in his heirs at law, and
not have passed 10 his surviving partner or to
his personal represG natives? Or could the
surviving partner, e ~ by his separate
deed have conveyed a more than his
lGadi ided half or moietyg most certaialy
not: especially in the face of the statute oil
! this State, which destroys the right of sur
: viVorship; empowers joint teuants to pas!
their interest by devise, and subjects it tC
payment of debts, to curtecy, and 10 dover
! Rev'd Code, 236; How g. Hutch, 357.-
! The law merchant is confined to trade anc
commerce, TO dealing in articles of mutation
, and does not extend to buying and selling
, otlands. If men entering into copartner.
ship as merchants, whose legitimate business
. is 10 trade in goods and chattels, wares anC
merchandise only, will travel out Of the line
! Of their business, and buy and sell real es
tate, they must do it subject to the rules o
law established for this kind Of property
) All legal writer's agree, that lands purcha
= sed by partners, on the death of one of tn,
= partners descends TO the heir; unless b
= express contract they hold the lands as pei
- sonalty and not as realty. Callyer on Part
:. nership, 60, and cases there referred tC
= Bell vs. Phyn, Z Yes. r. 453 g. 426, ct
= Yes. 500; ii Id. Cos; 4ih Nun. 3l6, an
] Smith ct. al, assignees of McJemsay v:
y y Jackson, 2nd Edwards 'Chancery Rep \
y Y. %. The last case cited has in it nearl
= every feature Of the one at the bar, wa
y deliberately argued, and the learned Judg
= who decided it, appears to have given th
y subject much care and attention.
= 1t will be observed that the defendant
= derive their title TO every part and parcel {
5e land in controversy in this cause, from an
:. through the late husband Of the complai
- ant, Lineous B. Markham, and hence The
&c are estoped TO deny his title, selzen,
IN. possession.
Of Thirdly,-The reception of the depo'
bv ton Of Vincent Galloway was clearly enron
me Gus upon the grounds stated in tho err
,ht assigned.
by This deposition states that Lineons
ex. Markham and the witness we're seized a
Jed possessed OF the lands in controversy
an partners in trade. The deeds hy.whioh ii
tile claimed, that they were seized aud poss,
by sed, jointly as individuals: each Of an u
ase divided moiety; which testimony is plain
les in contradiction of tho deeds, and for Il
the reason ought 10 have boon rejected by
nds Judge who tried the cause below, The
and cord in this cause shows that Galloway,
ourt witness, was one of the granlors IN,
,ase whom. the defendants claim, and who are
)hio sisting the claim of the complainant TO a,
ner- eT, and who offers his testimony as legal {
ress dence to explain and even to contradict
the own deeds. had thought upon the tria
SON this cause below that It was too we'll sell
con- to admit Of doubt, that a gTantor in a
-ess- was an incompetent witness even TO exp
ners Il, much less to contradict il; lst Phil
the on Evidence, AZ Note a, 9th Johns, r.. 5.
the SAIL who claim under sealed instrun
ludl- are estoped thereby," Dunn vs.. Cornell
hnd) Johns, c. r. ia Here The defend