Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1861-04-12
NUMBER Il,

with levy anterior to the registration Of the mort
gage aud OF course Is not an authority IN the case
now before rs for decision; and in truth, did n0t
call for any expression Of opinion to the effect Of
wifs's Lessee, W. Jones, was Question between
two deeds OF the sans land, executed by the Hslno
granter at different periods, involved, as we hare
already the title TO rsel estasaud in other re-
spects presented different enquiry from the case
now under consideration.
II was uniformly held prior to the act Of 1919
and subsequent thereto under the acts OF 1877 and
49, and 1881 eh 90-dat as be,seea the pdrties-rez.
stration was not necessary and that the deed took
effect from its delivery. Hays Lessee VI. 4cGuire
ct al. 8 Yer. g. Even as 70 land in Court OF
Equity-the deed was efficient upon its execution
and as to slaves and other personality IN
q Court Of Law or Equity-it operates without
registration. There was nothing, perhaps, In the
language Of the act Of 1919 that made It necessary
to hold that as between the parties, regstFation
was imperative-any more than in our othsr regis
try laws. Certainly, the legislation Of North Caro-
hna-adopted by us-in reference 70 the registry Of
ttles 70 alaEes, could scarcely be stronger.
here,-n Mrs. Harris, having an Immediate
or sale Of this slave accompanied By aciual delivery
o. possession ne one would doubt hat the husband
Mr. 0oocsh, ey his sEhsequentmarfiaee, took aolh-
ing. How sosurd then to hold that bscaass the
gft instead Of being in parol vas By deed IL mast
lose It's eeos not being registered! We should not
e-~----~Ng 4l1nlnL
the case to extend tAe doctrines Of the decsions to
which We have been referred upon The act Of 1919
to Q case like the present. Indeed II nav vail be
doubted whether this doctrine would, Al snv sIus.
have bsen applied to slaves sad other rsssopal
estate. Douglass ys. Acrford, Yer 3e4--5: ID 100
But this view aside, the act Of 1927 above named
relieves this deed Of all disulty growing cut of ils
non-registrssion. Itappliss 70 dseds exscutsd an
terror to its passage, well ss those 10 be nads in
the future and far repeals or modhes the set Of
1SI9ss 70 restore the established law making regis
tsation between the parties unnecessary, sad ana
bles the deed 10 retain its effect from its delivery
provided The rights Of creditors or bona fds pur-
chasers for valuable consideration without noiies
shall not be affected By the act, or By the rsgstra-
ton We suppose is was competent fer the Legisla-
ture 10 give this set retrospective effect far as
to cure the want Of regstraiicn In this deed Kent
455-6; Peters Peports, SILL; IL Howard 5I6 8;
2 Hum 595; Hum. 345, 35e; Hum. 646. S64;
Snsed 513, 62l. N0 have seen that Mr. GsodaiPs
position IN respect to this eontreTefsy Is exactly
that Of his wife, his marital rights not haTisg been
defrauded He is neither creditor Of or purchaser
from his wife. Marriage, il is true, is vaiunbie
consideration, when speak Of confederation -
necessary adequate TO raise and use or support
snti-nuptial settlement or contract But indspen-
dent Of any conlrack specially touching the wifes
estate the rights which the husband gains in that
estate by the act Of marriage solely, are act par
chased BY him in 3 legal sense, but oonferrod ey
The mere act and operation Of Law. The marriage
Is the only ccntrset entered into By the parties As
part Of the policy Of the law, and as an Incidental
consequences Of the relation contracted between abe
part;es the law gives the husband in his own right
certain interests in his wifss properly But does
not purchase any part Of it-not even that 70 which
he Is entitled At the instant Of the msrriage-mnch
ess does he contract for the purchase Of that which
is not hers then-such as things OF which she had
but bare possession use, or things held in trust
or as bailee. The husband and wife make Sut one
person, and therefore, that which binds her, binds
him; and the law will not transfer to him higher
estate or greater interest tan she had. Logan Va.
Simmons Dew. 4 Bait. Law Rep. 1916. Here
this deed undoubtedly, testing il even by the decis
ions upon the actOf 1sl9 and eonceding all that is
claimed by the counsel Of the defendant, took effect
at its delivery in full operation At the marriage
of Mr. GoodaIl and wife, and retained its efficacy
for near year thereafter, during which ne and sne
As we have seen were trustees in law for these re-
mainder men, holding by the same deed, and the most
that can be urged Is that its subsequent nonzegs-
tration within the year, caused us defeat 90 aio
If we were disposed to yield to thsas we are nos and
allowing too tat it was no part OF the business OF
these tenants for life to have this deed registered.
and they could claim the invahdty OF the remainder
because of this omisslOn-stil inasmuch as the pO-
stion of Mr. Gooda is precisely the same as that OF
his wife, he and she, as 70 this dispute, beng one
the effect of the act Of 1877 Is conclusive Oh tne
case.
We nav remark too, that this deed has been re-
eistered twenty years, in truth more than thirty,
and if material under the force Of the Act 1882 en-
26, the law presumes it TO have been registered gu
| lawful authority, without regard 70 tne Iorn y
certificate of probate, and although the contrary
NAV appear upon the face Of the papers as i seems
only to have been proved by one instead Of the two
attestngfwitnesses Webb Ct. Gis VS.. Weatherhead, Il
Howard, 576-57S; 2 Hum. 595 whether, hAslnl
i been re9istered 30 long, We might not, under The
circumstances of this case, also presume 1t % hAV'
been registered within the year from its delivery
we needinot decide
Itmsy be further remarked, that It does NOS yer,
distinctly appear whether this slave came inIe 20
/ sct1aI nossession of Mr. GOodaIl-by the death o
Mrs. Cartwright-prior TO the passage Of the Act o
The decree of the Chancellor win be affirmed witt
cost "ASHI'
Correct copy: J.P. CLARK, Clerk.