The eastern clarion. [volume] (Paulding, Miss.) 1837-1863, 1860-04-18
[9l22l
Joseph 7. Cason, ct al VS.. Bennett NJ.
Hubbard ct al

AuDDdTus ct al.
This bill was filed by Martha A. Boone
then the widow of James A. Boone. de-
ceased, to recover from the plaintiff in
error, certain slave, alleged to be her
sole and separate property, and which
had been sold by the deed Of herself and
husband, to Cason on the 9th July, 1855.
while she was an infant of the age OF
eighteen years. The ground of reliei
sought is, the invahdity of the deed a.
against the rights of the complainant, by
reason of her infancy at the Date of its ex-
ecution and the relief PRAYED for is a de
cree in her favor for the slave and for
hire.
A demurrer was first filed, and over
ruled, which presents the first ground OF
error relied on. .
1t Is insisted that the bill does not sui
ficiently show that the complainant was
entitled to the slave as her sole and sep
arate property, under the laws of thi,
| State; and, therefore, that the demurrer
| should have been sustained.
The allegations of the bill are not very
| explicit but they state, in general terms,
| that the slave was ''owned by her at tn,
| time Of her marriage" with her deceased
| husband-that "he was handed over to
her and her husband by her grandsire at
ter her marriage" that he was her sole
and separate property"-that "her hus
band had no right or power to sell him
but that she is still entitled to the said
slave" These allegations are certainly
sufficient, on demurrer, to show that the
slave was the sole and separate property
of the complainant. 1t is true that ther,
is nothing in the bill showing that he wa.
so held by her under the laws of thi
State But that is immsterial for tn,
purposes of the demurrer. For, if it h,
true that the slave was held by her as he
sole and separate property at the time o
the conveyance by her husband, tina
would be sufficient to show that the Join
. deed of herself and her husband, she be
ing then an infant, was insufficient to con
vey her title; for, generally, such con
veyance would be invalid, and it would
require the Authority OF statute to ren
der it valid. And under these allega
tons, it would be incumbent on the de
PENDANT to show that her separate estat
had been legally conveyed, whether
arose under the laws of this State or c
any other State; and that the conveyanc
,, was authorized by the laws of the Stat
by which her separate property may b
governed. The separate estate was, there
: fore, sufficiently averred to call for an al
swer by the defendants.
After the demurrer was overruled. tn
defendant, Cason, answered, claiming I
be a purchaser for valuable consideration
and setting up the joint deed of the hu
> band and wife to hini, executed and a,
knoRledged by them IN the form require
by the statute for the conveyance of tn
!, separate property Of the wife, as conve,
ing a valid title to the slave.
. The question arising upon this deed j
: whether it is binding upon the wife, VIII
was at its date under the age of legal G
: pacity; for it is admitted that it was ex
= cuted and acknowledged by the husban
and wife according to the form require
! by the statute.
e The statute authorizes a married w
i man, owning slaves in her sole and SCI
!; arate right, to make q contract, Joint
u with her husband, for the sale of sue
slaves, provided, that all such sales "sha
be evidenced by bill of sale under sea
# acknowledged by such married woman
VI IA deeds 81 married woInen are REQUIRE
l. by law to Be acknowledged "-Hutcl
e Code 4eS. "a. 1t clearly appears to !
a the intention Of this statute that sue
r, sales should not be valid unless acknov
d edged in compliance with the same esse
It tiaf requisites necessary to the valid a
Acknowledgement Of deed for land by
v married woman. This nrn"'-; 81 :,
statute cannot refer merely to the form
n the Acknowledgement; baG II must be |
ken 70 require such an acknowledges
/" in all essential particulars, as would |
required in al Acknowledgement Of a de,
1t conveying real estate by married woma
d And it has been held by this Court th
an acknowledgment Of sVeh deed by {
d infant married woman, Is Invalid and NJ
a. binding upo1 her unless ratified by h
after she becomes Of legal age,-Markha
e Va. Merritt Z, How. 49,, And this Is we
= sustained BY decisions in other States
II Sanford VS.. Mclean 3, p. III Bool v
y Mix liz, Wend. ll9.
q 1t is urgec in n-.o.ition to this Co
,sauo.lon OF the statute, that It depriv
the husband and wife, where she is a q
i. nor. of the rover 10 make contracts :
Is oessary for the support and protection
"a her separate property, because that pow
or depends upon the same clause OF the 81
is ute which also authorizes the sale OF
il slaves by the Joint contract OF herself a
n. her husband. 1t is true that the pow
II TO the wife. Jointly with her husband,
"a make contracts for the sale OF her slay
M as well as for their necessary clothlI
to maintenance and support, is conferred
the sane clause Of the statute; Du0