Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1859-04-28
NUMBER 372.

whose hsnds the bin Of sale was let vhethsr IL re-
NAMED in the possession OF Ls7sa or her uaotbsr
I Il is, however, wholly immatsrial The execution
of the instrument for ihs purposes intended being
distinctly established, ftrnal delivery i not in
I portant Flrrsr vs. Bridges 5 Hum. 4f9, 4 Kent
Com. $50, Meigs Dig PIG.
l. only remains to consider whether the trust Is
sufficiently made cut. II is act de9ied By complain
snts counsel that trust on slaves may be created
by paro nor could it be with any FEASIBILITY The
sih action Of the Euglish Statutes OF Frauds en-,
braces trusts in Glands, tenements and heridia-
ments" Even in England, therefore. valid trust
OF personal properly, may not only sll be created
Duth necessary, established BY mere parol deciara-
.ions (HIH on Trustees 81 And parol trusts u
oOth lands and slaves, have often been set ~ sAd
shIoreed 6y this court. (MsLanahan Es. MtEana-
nan Q, Hum 3IS; Harris vs. Carney's admioistrafoa
~ uum- 54fi Esns vs. Gillespie !, Ssan-) What
eueet the registry laws may have upon such trusts
Is against third persons, we iced not now stop 10
enquire But it is urged thas the terms Of the
trust are insufficient TO secure the propertv "a ba
sole and seParatsuse Of Mrs Sanders Te ean-
Aos assent to this. Il it clearly shown BY enc and
pernsps two witness, that the sole object Of ths
eonTeYauee Us to secure the properly IA Mrs
SAunders, fro from her husbands debts This
would be sufficient &c establish the trust vifbout
laying any stress upon the matter Of the razsetiou
Itself, acopveyaree By the beneficiary herself Whfeh
wo1ld be rendered wholly nugatory, unless esnstra-
ed in he way she inteaded il The trust was recor
nized by John II. Brown and James saunders sad.
as We have seen By the eomPlaisanis atasr their
fathers death. There no pretenR for claiming
that any title vested ia Msj Sanders b. virtue u
the statutes sf limitations There vas never any
adverse holding upon which the stature could oDe-
rate Tae usual acts Of ownership, which we're sx-
ercset equally over MoIly, as over LJdis,are not,
under the circumstances entitled to any weight, as
vas held by this court in the analogous case OF
Foster vs.. Jordan 2 Swan 476. Il follows, neess-
sarily, that James Saunders having acquired no
Title 10 Lydia and her increase, could convey none
TO TIE CONF iuants' BY his win.
This view Of the case renders 10 unnecessary to
consider the doctrine Of estoppel upon the aefen-
lsnis BY reason Of the proceedings in the elss OF
v ara vs. Saunders as before detailed Il may net
pc lnproTer 10 say, however, that Ehils6 would Be
iihcult to maiutain that The complainanis were
estoPped BY anything in that case from setting I'D
any rights theymight have under their fathers viii
SINCE 70 such right were directly, or even neidsn-
ally involved Ia the Issues made, il would, perhaps
be equally difficult for The e1mplaiuRuts 10 aToidtRo
fleet Of their admission that their mother lad sc>
ualiy given away seme Of the DESCENDANTS Of Lydia
g Tar as that fact could operate upon their rights
The costs II the entire will be divided equal
, between the complaiaants azd the defendants,
md with this modification tie decree Of The Chan
'ellor VIII be aflrmed. W. 2. CooPKR,
Special Judge.
correct copy, J. p CLARK, Clerk