Brownlow's Knoxville Whig. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1866-1869, 1866-06-13

| THOMAS Il. Caldwell, Attorney General and Re-
| porter.
| WILLLilI CORLET rs. SIRIH CORLET, ct a.
This is action Of eectment to small tract Of
land Smith county. At the March ls6l of the Cir
cult Court for said county, trial had, which resulted in
verdict and Judgment in favor OF the defendants The
| he has prosecuted an appeal to this court. -
Corey This defendant Sarah widow and the
defendants the children said Mathew Coey by
the said Sarah and the plaintiff the child OF the said Mah
/ ew by former marriage.
The plaintiff having filed affidavit stating the original
had been lost msaid fraudueny suppressed by
the defendants offered and read in evidence without objection
copy Of deed Of gift Of the land in controversy from his
himself dated December lst 1887
acknowledged before the Clerk of the County Court for
tered the office Of the Register for said county the 18th
| day of December, 1887.
dated the 18th Of October and admitted probate in the
County Court of said the November thereof in
1889 by which he the land controversy de-
PENDANT, Sarah for life during her wdowhood with
appears the proof that Mathew Corley a
humble circumstances and about eighty years of at
the time OF his DEATH IN October 1902 and had continued TO
reside upon and cultivate the land from the date of the deed
1887 up the time of his DEATH and during that
years age the the deed, and
to the state kentucky part Of
father, which he cultivated himself
year before Corley witness was
his bouc and od him that he was ctting old and onCh 10
make WILL and provide for his wife and little children,
which he replied that he had right the land it belonged
to William him a OF gift to it many years
and expressed desire to provide for his wife and little
/ children if he had any thing to give them.
Williams that
his death, Mathew Corfy talking about moving
to which Corey replied the land did not belong to hint be-
onged his William On another occasion he asked Cor
which he replied he was afraid William would not Ike it
that after his death it belonged to William.
belonged to William, but that he had for his life time
for cutting wood the land, that belonged William,
and he was afraid William would not like it.
There proof in the record showing that Mathew Corley
subsequently, the the deed
short time before his DEATH disputed Williams
title to the land, or that in manner at time he de-
MED the execution and delivery of the deed of gift that
time after date of the deed in 1887 short time
before his death he set up claim to the land his
But on the contrary the record docs show that on all coca
DEATH IN October he the execution and e1s
tnce Of the deed and likewise from the date the deed
to short time before his DEATH recognized the validity of the
donees title under There proof record
ing intention the part of the donor retain possession Of
was oReto Five f effect thereto in re,t1r the title in The
donee and in fact, if anything further wanting, tho
declaration Of the donor made only short time before his
DEATH introduced by the defendants purpose
avoiding the deed and defeating the donse title Bpder
that he had decided William but that he had done in
statement that William had agreed to take of him for
theand but failed to do clearly negative the on
that anything had been left undone
evcd be his part give effect the deed
plaintiffs title distinctly place the defense upon grounds
And now notwithstanding the great loss of time and the
ing the deed Of gift and the title TO the land the principal
question relied argument here well the
below, would appear the charge Judge
is that the deed of gift Of 1887 although acknowledged and
registered imperative because, it insisted,
delivered intended operate conveyance
land and this infer have been the conclusion jury
We think this assumption not only wholly unsuancd but
it is clearly met and overthrown by the testimony the
defendants rely upon the cases of Tay
lor Taylor Hump 679 Martin Ramsey Hump 1884,
McEwen Troust, Sneed 1885, and Mailing Mailing
Sneed 6o authorities in point in support of the PROPOSE
ton
instrument by the of which he gave his
slaves 1t was witnessed and deposited in his trunk with
Ctaftnr
fore In that the held there had been delivery
Of the delivery being essential to constitute.
deed of gift the instrument could not be set such.
In Of Martin Ramsey, compainantI nteate
ecuted deed of gift 10 his daughter Elizabeth for
slaves which remained in his possession until his DEATH
being found among his afterwards deposited in
the Office of the Clerk of the County Court and proved after
making the deed being involved in law suit security
the husband of his daughter Elizabeth be heard
debt and if sufficient then the other should go
formal manuel delivery the grantee necessary
validity OF deed If by his conduct, and declarations tn.
evnCed that he considered the complete
wedged before subscribing witness that would be
sufficient invest the title the donee But the
that the paper found signed and witnessed would
that effect there should have been evidence that the
paper delivered the grantor his sigma
acknowledgment vesting the title
and completing all that for him to effect that
On the there proof that retained til:
her husband until he should ascertain the result OF the suit
then pending
done by the by which the slaves
vested the donee sufficient place onus
HlOO upon INC lCieIlo'ut that outu ACT Nde lohc.
In the of MCEven Troust Dr. Gerard Trous had
made deed Of gift his and daughter of all his
Davidson counfT in 1910 Tho donor retained nosssinr NJ
the property until his death 1850 The consideration
forth in the deed the forth the deed before
the court the love and affection of the donor for the
donces and will be observed in many respects
that case was similar to the case under considera
ton In that case the court held that delivery
Senta TO the execution Of deed but that it need not
ne nGfI ana %nue 'Ge intention to accept the deed
other facts And deed be made and delivered Reg
direct be subsequently there
to- should consider that equivalent actual delivery
and acceptance. Maynard Maynard, 10 Mass, 4J6
Sampson Thornton, Metcaf 20 COM. note
existence of the deed and declared his purpose that take
full effect. The held the gift valid and the
10 vest the donces the title Of the property named in the
The Mailing Mailing upon an issue deri,ua rel
involving the validity Of the will OF Nelson Mailing, de-
ceased Upon the trial "a deed Of gift made 10y the estaor
records OF an action for Islander OF the date instituted
against the tetatOr also read The deed made
consideredand by parties
gift and the claim possess
Now by applying rules laid the cited to
the facts in this case they appear in the record We
1857 valid, and operates TO vest in the donce the title
the land controversy And the fact that the donor
tnucd upon cultivate the said land
the date Of the deed 1857 10 the time of his DEATH in
1859 l5I be actually rented portion the land
the donee who paid the rent listed
for the of the donor who paid the when
IN connection with the other facts in the case together
VITA h oft repeated declaration Of the donor concerning the
ute ana explanatory Of his holding make difference
70 question the validity the deed.
Inc CCu court Judge asked charge the jury that
upon the question Of the delivery of the deed,
they LOOK 10 The TACT that the donor had repeatedly
recognized the lands the lands psnt which he de-
clIned 10 90 IN TINS We think there
if the grantor Acknowledged the execution of the d.rd and
be registered substantially assent thereto or
recognize valid recognize the tta IN Tho
ranor under it, that atbOug delivery souvalsnt
the livery Of the deed and think Circuit Judge
should have instructed the jury and his failure do
doubtless, led the believe that but little impor
lance be attached such facts In determining
question 10 the delivery of the deed but however this
have BEEN instructions asked Teeyent the
facts presented by the evidence in the and material
thepantl rights The law holds certain facts equivalent
the delivery Of the deed and the duty of the court to
the jury with reference the facts in the the
law arising such facts leaving the jury ascertain
/ whether the facts have been proTen.or not.
the take OF this case unable find any
the record to sustain the certainly
to discover the grounds upon which it based but
hnk probable the verdict would have been different
had il the fact that the cha rgs instead being
made the made by the proof
touching question of the delivery of the deed made
with different state Of facts, and not such
we're exhibited by the evidence.
We think his honor the Circuit Judge erred in refusing TO
grant trial The judgment of the Circuit Court will
( lie reversed and he cause remanded.
HAWKINS, Judge
/ Attest: J. G. FRAZER, Clerk.
ADMINISTRATORS NOTICE.
7 OF NH II a