Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1859-04-09

This is an action Of rtpleVin brsnght BY Thomp-
son 10 re ioYer the possession Of slave named
George, which be claims hiFerer for the year
1857, against the defendant Jones' who sets up title
in himself, and denies the claim Of plaintiff. The
action failed, and the case is here BY appeal in sr
ror. ...--
Mary Cunningham was the owner Of The slave,
and by deed Of gift dated the 9Th Of Oct, 1856,
conveyed him to JoshuA josh and bis wife Dslah.
The main question argued is, - 10 the delivery
of deed, and this is made the controlling point IN
the case III there was delivery the lite thereup
en- passed 10 Jones and his wife and the contract Of
hiring made with Mrs Cunningham, after thsttime,
would confer no right upon the plaintiff and the pos
session iaken and retained, during The year by the
defeudsn was right and proper
The facts, as TO the delivery, are these: At the
request OF the old lady r D. Roberts wrote The
DEED OF gift, which she signed by making her mark,
and the same was aftested by said RobeEtsand Mrs
NJ E. She'd. She then gave Roberts the Registers
fee and requested min to carry the deed to the
Ois,er and get it registered, which was done in due
form, alter probate on the same day by both wit
nesses before the clerk. After this was done, and
the proper cert6eaes placed upon 1t, Douglass car
ried il hack TO heig&t Shields, where che was then
Shaving; and unframed her that be return>
ed IL regis cred; when she requested him to
give il to Mrs She'd, which ne did" This was 8
week or month after probate and registration. 4
This is the substance Of the evidence of Roberts
He does not state thaL sac gave him any INSTRUCTIONS
what to do with ths paper after he attended 10 the
probate and registration of it. and 50 he returned
Il to her aud placed it with Mrs Shield as she then
directed The donets we're not present ard lived in
another county After all this done the eoa
tract of hiring was made By Mrs. G., or Mr.. She'd,
at her direction. 81 .gse
The Court in charging the jury makes the case
turn upon the question Of delivery, entirely, and in
structs them very fully upon the lsw on the subject
carefully observing the line Of dsnarkation between
tbe law and the facts Of the case.
II is net eonlroverted, and is every where held,
that delivery is necessary TO deed, Kent. 454.
Il NAV be BY express verbs the acts of the party.
1.-THE parties eTnce BY what is done, in any clear
and eouivocal manner, the intention Of delivering
tbe deed. it is sufficient. Addison on Con T. De-
livery is question for the jury open TO parole evi
denee, and may be inferred from circumstances, 10
Notes.
Whether the mere execution and delivery to the
register, for registration, will amount 10 delivery
is a question on which there is some conflict. In
McEWen Ss FToost, Sneed 1911, It was held that thG
mere "delivefy to the register for registry" wa
not delivery Of ITSELF but if the granter directed
1t TO be recorded or subsequently consented 10 IL,
that would be equivalent to actual delivery.
The Court stated to the jury the faets that Wsr'
proved in this case, they above set FORTH ant
charged, that they amounted to PriDa seis case