The eastern clarion. [volume] (Paulding, Miss.) 1837-1863, 1859-03-30

j. W smith, ct al, plaintiffs in error, IS. T ". Wi


Error TO the Circuit Court Of Monroe County
! ne plaintiffs in error commenced their action OF
repie'n IN the Circuit Court to the posses
sion of a negro from the defendants in error.
both parties claiming title to said negro under trust
deeds which appear in the record.
mere was jury and verdict for defendant in the
court below, and judgment rendered thereon. from
winch tins writ of error is prosecuted. Two errors
are assigned, in form follows: l- As shown in the
trial.
The Office Of assignment Of error is to notify The
opposite party Of the special causes of complaint eN
lsuhg IA the record IL Is in the nature Of declare
uon To- which Is the right and duty Of the defendant
IA error regularly to plead IN auYO st elgdtl0a Is
the usual plea, answering to the general s-uc Which
Is M the nature of demurrer presenting, il does,
an issue IN law directly to the court.
We snail only notice the second assignment Of En-
r"ro IN tins for the that the first presents
no special cause Of complaint the notice OF the de-
PENDANT OF Of the but simply refers to the hll
o. exceptions and the astuteness Of the defendant
cord.
The second assignment Of error presents the
question whether the finding Of the jury manifest
" against the evidence in the case under the law
winch should govern it, and upon this point we think
that the court erred in not granting new trial The
evidence clearly established that the title toahc prop
erty in dispute origuelly in the father of Mr..
Cater-tia after the act of lS39, known the mar
Ted woman law, this negro was given To the wife Of
DAVIS > Carter. That Davis :. Carter in the wear
ls5l sold this negro to defendant Williams trustee,
to secure debt due 10y HIM without the concurrence
ui his "e. That IN 1883 Carter and his wife sold the
same negro by deed of trust duly executed to plain
uits IN error TO secure another debt.
The only question for consideration under the
state OF tacts presented in the record is whether the
sale by the husband alone vested any title in Williams
the defendant in error, under the act of 1859
Upon tins question neither the statute of 1892 nor
the repeated decisions Of this court leave any room
for doubt, without formal review of the cases We
state generally that, with the exception Of Trcy -
White to which will presently advert the rule has
been uniform that under the act Of 1889 the 'pr0Jsl-
IT. in the slaves is severed from the right to the
proceeds Of their abor.-that the Possession of the
slaves Is joint in the husband aud wife and that suc
properly orthe Possession ofthe wife in her slaves
cannot be taken from her, for the debts conrac, 81
Liabilities OF the husband : NJ p. 1856 The Grand
Guli Sank Barnes II : NJ. y. IS Carter " Car
ter; y Miss r. p. SOL, Lyon W Knott: y Miss r. p
SOL Lyon " Knott; ~ Miss. r. =. III. Wells v
lreadwell; % Miss. r. p. III. Cameron " Cameron
I 30 Miss. +. p l6l, Pennington ". Acker
The case Of lirley White, 3st Miss o. 442 50 f,l
A. concerns the bffyfe tie court was psrhaps cor
rerty decided but a. to the
that the husband could make a contract To- part viii
the possession Of the slave, which would he binding
during the covcrture the wife. il l. Inconsistent
not only with the repeated decisions previously mad
bI thlS court but with the PLAN provisions of the a
OF ls39 ana to that extent Is therefore oyerrulcd
The case of Stedman Holman. - Mis-, r. d So
i not inconsistent with the long established doctrine
Of this court on this subject In this case an cxccu
ton against the husband and wife was levied on N
1859, and sold to Holman, who afterwards cor
yeyed II back to the husband litter the daSth of n
rife her administrator brought an action Of repeyi
against the husband. The husband, the death q
the wife. was entitled to his old possession whic
was joint nth her during her life. and continuing
! him for his life after her death. The adminstrato
therefore, had right to the possession Of such sci
1 arate property of the wife against the husband
Under the views here expressed, the verdict Of Oh
idry manifesty against the evidence and tile al
| and trial should therefore, have been grant.
For this error the judgment Will he reversed. cau-
| remanded and re''re dc moro awarded.