Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1861-04-12
DECISIONS OF THE sUPREmE COURT.
OFFICIAL.


OFFICIAL.
decisions OF the supreme Court Of she |
s'ate OF Tennessee at nashville, Des
eemeer Terms 1850. . r~ Il
Martha Green ct ais W. John 4. Good.ll and wife.
This Is hill Quia 7snst to secure to ccmplsin-
ants certan slaves to which they slege they are en-
u.ea y 20 take effect in possession after
defendant, John I. Goodan. They claim the said |
slaves under deed executed by tha sa;d sarah |
while she was fsns sole, and previous 10 her mar
riage with said John T., bearing date the 2eth of |
March, 1924, whereby she, for the consideration Of
one dollar to her in hand paid By Fif gus g. Harris.
guardian Of her two children, Eli r. Harris and /
Patsy s. Harris, gave and conveyed to her said |
fuo children her negro girl named Esther, about |
eight years of age, which was Willsd to her by her
father, Thomas CartEright-said children to take
possession Of said negro and her increase at the
death Of said Sarah, Also one hundred dollars Of
pension money to be paid into The hands Of their
guardian immedately for the benefit Of said chill
dren also one good eather bed and furniture apiece
This deed was attested by two subscribing HinesS-
es, namely: Hezekiah Cartwright, The brother of
said Sarah, and Eli Harris, her brother.in-laW and
admitted to registration in the county Of wilson on
the 18th Of November, 1926, upon the probate only
Of Eli Harris, one Of the said witnesses, taken at
the September Term Of the County Court Of wilson
County In that year. 1t was never proved ey the
other witness, otherwise registered, so tbst the
registration, such, Was necessarily defective, for
want Of the proof of the other Witness and because
not within the time prescribed by the act Of 1Sl9 ch
AZ, Sec 2 Its execution, hosevsr, as scenmoa law
instrument, at the time of its date, is fully estab
lshed BY the pleadings, the fact being sverred IN
the bill and admitted by the defendants in their
answers. st-..-.
The complainant, Martha, is one Of the chill |
dren Of the defendant, Sarah, named in
the deed, and the other complsinsnts are
the chii1reu and Only next kin Of the other
child Eli r. Harris who died subsequently, to the
execution Of the deed, whereby they become snti-
tied to his interest in remainder. The slaves in dis
pute sre Esther and her descendants, numbering
now ten or more. At the time Of the execution Of
said deed the said Sarah and John T. resided in the
county Of Wilson, where IL was executed aud where
they have continued to live ever sinces and she was
then the widow Of John Harris, tho father Of the
two children named in the Deed and does net appear
then to have had any other children; nor does it sp
pearh at the said John Harris left any estate or that
said children were in any manner provided for.
The slave Esther had come to said Sarah by the
will OF her father, Thomas Cartwright, who had
died prior to the making Of the deed and In the
will Of his widow had life estate IN the slave, and
she had her in possession ct that time and nvea
till the year 1927 So that said Sarah did not re-
ceive the possession CT Esther until after the exc
cuion Of said deed and sfteF her marriage with de-
feudant John T. The precise time OF the marriage
between the said Sarah and John i. the former
does not state but are satisfied it was upon the
9th Of April 1924 eleven days after the execution
of the deed. Neither does she remember whether
The deed was made after the engagement to marry
vas had between her and said John T., but We sre
also convinced that it was, the bond fer the mar
rage license being dsied two days anterlor TO the
execution Of the deed. John I. GoodalL, IN mis-
answer and cross-bill, denies that he knew
of the deed until long after the marriage, and AYERS
II was a scheme 10 defrsud him as husband out OF
his lust expectatons gotten up by the said Sarah
and the attesing Witness and kept secret from him.
but he states special facts or circumstances OF
ffsud On the other hand, 1t is positively sVerred
by the defendant Sarah in her answer 70 the cross
bill and also by the claimants in remainder that ne
was informed By her Of the existence Of the deed
hefore the marriage and made objection thereto
but with full knowledge ofit-the rites OF mat
rimony were communicated they deny all
fraud She saws she urged her father TO give Esth-
er TO her children and he promised to do so-out
died without changing his will and she executed
the deed to carry out long settled purpose Ii ap-
pears the deed known TO others besides the par
ties and witnesses prior TO the marriSge-but whetn-
er TO the said John T. does not appear nor Is II
shown that any particular fraud or misrepresenta-
tion was practiced upon him. and at most al tnas
can be claimed is that he was ignorant OF the deed
Ii does not otherwise appear than by his statement
that he knew his intended wife was entueo 70 TINS
slave and from the proof he seems then TO nave
| been ayerse to owning that species OF property
1t does not appear that he settled, or oerrd 10 set
tie ANYTHING the said Sarah IN the marriage OF
| that he then had the means to do So though ne u
l now in good circumstances. He had been before
married and had by that marriage son who now
nossesses a good estate. He has had posaessln OF
Father and her descendants since 1871, and claims
them absolutely and denies the validity OF the deed
says he has always so claimed them put ms wiie; ne
| in her answer says she was not aware that ne DID
aI,oaus set up this absolute claim. She says further
that with the exception of Esther and the pension
money he, by the marriage, got all she owned, 70
wit a slave Ssralee, some STOCK, nOusehoa iurnf
ture and an interest in some slaves IN the possession
of her mother and this is sustained 6y the proof,
save as to the slave in the possession OF her mother
and as to which the witness did not know how the
fact was -.
AGAINST the husband John T. Goodall and he has nc
equity to be relieved againt it on that ground Ae
eording to some of the authorities the general rule
is stated to be- that disposition by the wie OF ner
| property after contract of marriage, ana Dfeore
Il has been soemnzed viii be fraudulenf IS against
| the husband who has been kept ignorant Of the
transactiors. And according to other authoritles
sueh deed is priua Jdcie good-the bare fact thas
the husband did not know oft without more, being
insufficient to vscste it, something must nave oeen
| done to mislesd him-some act or statement snow
| ing case If nala fdss. But, however this may De,
It agreed that every such deed is net, as matter
Of course 10 be set aside because the husband was
not n marty or rrivy thereto but that each case Is
70 be Judged Of By itsown particular circumstances
And il is well settled that ifs conveyanee be made
by woman in the discharge Of the moral duty o.
nyavidipr for the children Of former marriage, II
Eli not be considered as fraud upon the intended
|, husband. though it had been concealed from him
: Clancy on Rights 919, e2e Storys Eq., SEQ
) 263: 3 Kent, It's: St. George vs.. wake, Myne {
3 Keeue, 6lO: Legion vs.. Simmons. Jrd Eq, K 4oI
, | Mrigs' Rep. l47-S: Head, 2OS-4. Here 1t seemi
5 TO us that Mrs Harris only made bona tide con
| II .oaaouahla ahara 0f what she had u
8 her children By her first husband, and there was NJ
evidence that Mr.. Goodsll wes actually misled Of
deceived Neither the remainder be neld IN
valid because the slave, at the time or the giIt wa
not actuslly delivered into tie possession Oh the 90
nees in the deed for tae gf ifit is to De so called
be;r bv .rstino was valid without the delivery an
the nossession ofthe first taker, or OF her who "a
" tba slave at the execution Of the deed became IN
7 nossassion of the remainder men. In this case tn
: | widow Of Thomas Cartwright had life estate l
this slave with remainder to DEFENDANT oarsn' OF
of ubieh she carved another life estate with remair
der 10 the children of her first marriage. The po'
. sssson OF these tenants for lfs as they succeeds
b | socb other was the possession Of these Chi
! Srsn az remainder men, under the deed
Al ths;r mother TO taem. By the very positio
70 and relation OF these tenants Tor life, tne
of vsre constituted quasi trustees for the remsind
to and oould legally do nothing 10 Its prejudice or
le struction. King ct. ais. vs.. Sharp. 6 Hum. 8
If In Law the effect Of the deed the same IS II Il
entire legal estate had been put in trustee TO ser
at these continuous interests in the property Cam
ne and wife We. hurley, 2 Yer. $50. 5S8. Upon d
marriage Of Mr. oodsll, be, in respect TO this slaS
occupied precisely the shoes Of his wife and "
- - subject to the same trusts and obligations wi
pc vhieh she was chargeabe anterior to the msrrise
aa and when let into possession-after the deceaSe
ae y" Mrs Cartwright-he became, by Law, as husbar
- In virtue Of the marriage, only the owner Of
sn vife's life estate; but did not and could not,
he qure greater interest unless it be shown u
nd his wife had greater estate. In truth, he and
rn wife, with the remsnderihsn, held under the ssi
on title to wit: the deed Of the 26th Of March, 18i
And this is so. if he we're ignorant Of the de
and claimed the slave absolutely; heesuse WhsteV
and bound the wife snersted him az hHseG'
ut There is great diversity between personal geo
a in which the wife has . property in her own ril
ny and those in which she has but bare possessiS
he or usufruet or those she holds en- autsy dr0a.
IN. marriage is an absolute gift to the hnsoand oi
n cbsttels. personal, in her own right, WaetneL
u, husband survive or no but Of personal gooos.
yai auter dro as executrix or administering e.e,