Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1858-06-13
L-opiaioHs Of tie Supreme Coupf Of he SAFE of
tennessee, dlirered az Jackson, a: Aprlz 2gH 1853
GEORGE H. PRINCE and Others, e. enrrs RaOlou.


clause the vi touching the slaves nov in contest this
PRIcr negro girls Ay4 Facs 70 Sc for the sole nd
separate my daughter W. BEoAcH for and during
divided bwesn such issue her body IS she nay have gS
at her death, to them and their heirs forever"
W PRINCE and the defendant married in 1874 and
the negro girl Martha placed IN their possession 1885
without any deed Of Or even verbal evidence Of the character
the defendant up this time. The girl GRos was given %
said JANE in 1s47 when she very small.
The said JANE died 1885, This is Hed 70 enforce the IT,
the children Of JANE ". under the The defence
that the right Of defendant perfect By tie operation d The
statute limitations upon the parol gin before the making Of the
will, under which he has never claimed hold the slaves and
the same Wsy aHect the title In other words he de-
PENDANT insists the tesor had no right 70 these slaves
at the time q his DEATH and therefore could make valid dis
By and since our 1891 90 section 70 Gift Of slaves
in writing is "uttey void aud Of whichever
between the parties REELY vs. WOoD, 10 YEEsER, 46
adverse possession by for the DOVER Of three years under Eh
invalid g will make good title. WHARTON WILD Hex
5 It is upon this lsst ground that the defendaa. rests his
case. The rsut must depend upon the fsc the sW il eesr
That he hsd the PoSsesu long enough p tile under
quired He claim Adversely o he former owner
This fact well as the other must be de b him
Before the act q 1851 he delivery Of slave 20 married
daughter Htnog osslg SAa would aAe the PFesgmp
only loan, upon which the statute viii not operate unless an
adverse holding known 70 be bsoT proved II gift though
taken to Do conformity with t. aud consequently
statute would make good right In three years which was
void between the parties By the q 1851 would be
created, BY time operating upon the adverse possession.
But in hs case bslos have bat &c single fact Of this
transmission Of possession, and tie Of he slaves whether
under bament gin. left conjecture. IN
hava that the presumption against The gin and
therefore, the burthen Of proof against The party claiming title
against the original An ate is made 70 prove BY
Mrs BRETT that express gift Of Frances when very
SMALL to Mrs BROAcH, By the declaration Of her eri this
not sufficiently made out think Some evidence is sd
duced TO the effect that the defendant refused to receive any
profits from bis sthern-lsW, with any restrictions m
tstOns his power and control i. This clearly
made would be Circumstances tending 20 illustrate the
character Of this transaction but conclusive. The
payment Of taxes BY BRoAc, e ye h circumstance
the question OF title tbq would Be done probably By haee,
well donee Yet il IL not proved VII sufficient distinct
in this case opeats With any upon constitutions
We have then reached the here Of property passing from
he father to the and possession Of the daughter, without
explanation Of the character Of the Transaction and without
asked 10 End thss It g upon which the
tapte Of limitations would il favor Of the defendant and
lake for him in three years. good and ndable title against
he donor. This cannot do according 70 the principles Of
We have stated. It follows from what has BEN said, that
he title 70 these slaves remained In JoHI Primes at the time be
iads his viii AID died. and consequently that TIE coPanants
ave right TO recover them under ths viii
The decree Of the Chaneeuor % this eject affirmed,
CABVTHEBs.
Test N. D. WELcH Clerk and HssseF.