The eastern clarion. [volume] (Paulding, Miss.) 1837-1863, 1861-03-22

uaediately followingi It. and in direct c. m
nection with il. Is the limitation that. u. ,
on her death without issue. the slaves are
to be equally divided among her surviv-
ing brothers aud si-ters-which Is wholly
irreconciltble with the construction con-
tended for.
II appears that the object of the donor
was merely to loan" the slaves to his
daughter. giving her ''the profit arising
from their labor alone" during her lie.
and to exclude any property in her in
them and 10 prevent their being subject
I'd 10 any contract made BY the daughter
or her lIushand. Aud 10 that end he re-
serves TO him-elt The power to control the
-lavps IA trustee f,r her during his life.
,nd after his death to- surh per-on or per
sons as he should appoint. The 81 'use
relied on IN support the title 1T the plain
tiff i un-killfuIlv introduced hut the in
tentinn il manifest from the whole inStrn-
mont. That intention was to exclude the
idea that amy interest was to vest in the
daughter. which should continue after her
'leath. bui upon her dying without issue.
thai the Iv,-S were to b.. consi.tpt. d "a
part of hi estate RHt 10 what end were they
- % b., cnu~d red +? ia the event stated.
to he ecu illy divided among her .uryiv.
ing brnthprs and si-iprs This ia n clear
conveyance If an estate in remainder to
the surviving brothers and sisters, to Ike
..ff-et on the dsaih of Mrs Morgan, with.
out issue, anil this estate is a. positively
conveyed by the deed rs is the loan TO
Mrs Morgan, for life with remainder TO
her children that might survive her.
IIeuct il i very clear that the deed di-
vested the title Of the donor. and Of it
self did not tend to show title in him.
The ruling Of the Court was therefore.
correct, aud IA the same view is spplica-
bic 10 the copy OF the deed offered no
prejudice was done tn the plaintiff BY the
excluding of il if il be conceded that it
was properly proved ard recorded. 1t il
therefore. immaterial to the substantial
merits Of the case, whether the COPY WAS
correctly excluded or not for the re5eon
upon which il w,s excluded. for If admi'-
ted il would not have shown tile in the
plsintif.
The plaintiff next offered in .vid nce.
4 deed o. quit claiun and r,.lea~r exeeu.ed
To him bv the surviving brothers aud si--
tiers Of Mrs NJ .rgnn dated 2rl April
1850. conveying TO him Their interest in
the slaves. aud in "ff,.ring tn. sama al
united that on the 1T oi March 1850
William p. Ghosan was in the aciu Il aud
exclusive POSSESSION OF these slaves. in
Pontot0c county IL this State claiming
them ~ his own properly to the knowl-
81 - Of the plaintiff anil that Ghovan has
ben since tiiat time and WAS ut the time
Of the commeucrn-nt Of th.. suit in such
pns-essinu 10 the ku, wl,.dre nf The plain.
tiff An! therauonu the dafendlnt's nh.
j-c'ion was sustained the plaintiff except.
ing
Thi- ruling of the Court is the last err
ror assigned
We think that No error was committed
in this. TO tie plaintiffs prejudice, for
several rea-nus.
Isl. II the action he regarded as COR
tnvcr znd rnnv-r-inn il apue4rs that the
slaves were in the adverse possession If
6LnVsn &C and haGlre the date Of the
quit claim deed 10 the plaintiff and the
alleged conversion must hive been com
miItrd before the Il ,ta nftha daed And il
is we'll settled that the deed could not
convey a right ri action faF conversion
sgsin-t the defendant who hal commit
ted the alleged wrongful net before. the
tile Of the plaintiff - the property ac-
crurd; for IA It would b The assignment
Of y mere right to one fnr wrong which
i against the policy Of the law. Goid-
win W. Llny g. Porter 23T Hmnklin ".
Wilkins, 3 Ala. 100: Mrgaor ". Ankenv.
IL. H.. 5iS 3 Iitfell al Gardner Vs.
Adam~. - Wend. 2q7.
Cd IL the action he regarded as Dedaue
the deed conferred ~ TILE upon the
plaintiff. bPcau-e az It's date the sltves
We're in the sdv'r-e possession Of -iran
ger. claiming them r. hi- pr"pertv. to the
knnwlelge Of the rlsintiff when he nc
repIed tie depd Thrde,l was tlprrfnra
innprra'ivr 10 convey IT'LL Brown -
Li,sscomh. Q Porter 472: Young vs. Fur
vuson. | I.lfipl 2qS NJ finnr Va huk.uv.
supra nunklin Va Wilkiu SUPRA.
But moreover. Defispe could not he
maintained. hecau.p ~ the in~iitu'ian or
: Ia suit. the slaves were in the pos e-sion
"f Ghorn. aud it il necessary ihst this
foim OF aciion should he brought against
the pat, h-ving the ~laves in possession.
| Sand Pl & Ev 43i
Bird. The drt.,l was offered as a regis
terrell deed la Alshsmi. without further
p'"Of OF its rXrc,alnn. il appears that
the rlav.- wr,,+ 10 ihs time Of its ey. on
'lnn aud regis ration In the State. anil in
the adverse. D. 'sS,.~sian Of Ghoran. The
registration in Alabama wis. therefore.
invalid and inoteru ive a. to the rights Of
parties holding the slaves in this State.
aud on this ground thu instrument was
inaduii>sihle n recorded deed
Judgment affirmed,