The weekly Panola star. [volume] (Panola, Miss.) 1857-1881, 1867-01-12


n aiil ~ Ne soH. N whlah fhs vii
ow hHd hef Hgti ~ d0wef NJ ~
if4Hsaslbm Ne ftthef sa lmek land
~ ttf g4lue n EIGHT ih0uaad ees
baadfed dpllle #nd olftnfd title
~ athef lnnd worth ionf ihnnasad
hve huudfed dollars and IN #nsIi
efHilab n lint h. Wnveyei away
land sorih thirteen ihmmbd dall.fs.
Ob=efve I've prejudice lhis wmld
work 10 The rights N The Wldow
she was entitled a. dover IN bath the
tracts N lands uniras eonveyei hy
her husband In gpd fiiih and ff =
valuable consideration. Ilui ihe tfast
worth $500 is conveyed by him as
q gW, which then Is used as 4 vaIua.
ble consideration for which he eon.
yeys land worth slg,OO0. This, then,
is clearly failure ~ valuable con.
sidefation for the Second conveyance
to the amount u 300, and the
tcsult is that the widow, INSTEAD NJ
having dover In both The tracts of
land, as she was entitled 10. would
he entitled 10 II only In onc. and tl,al
the less valuable of the tracts. The
second conveyance stands really, ior
the most part, on the same considera.
ton as the first --thnt is, the same
land given by the first was exchanged
for the land conveyed In the second.
II Is mere change Of the form and
subject Of the gih, Hence, the sec
ond conveyance cannot be said to be-
founded on valuable consideration,
but is, in fact, for the most part, a
gift.
Such an arrangement is not in ac-
cordance with the spirit of the statute
which allows a conveyance by the
husband, in good faith and for q val
liable consideration, without relin-
quishment, to bar her dover. The
provisions requiring a valuable con-
sideration in order to support con-
veyance affecting the wife's right Of
dover, contemplates that the hus.
band is to acquire property or means
which may be an equivalent to th,
wife for the right which she loses by
the conveyance. This is inconsistent
with the idea that the property ma,
be conveyed by the husband, as |
gift, either in whole or for the mos
part. 1t contemplates value receive,
in which the widow may have ben
eft in lieu of the right conveyed
But, by these conveyances, if tn
second one were held valid as to he
rights, she would loose her interest il
one of the two tracts Of land, whel
she had her right of dover in both
and this loss would fall upon tn
tract which is the most valuable.
As to the point of good faith, tn
transaction does not appear to be FIRE
, from suspicion.
In the first place, the deed fror
David +. Jiggitts to the decease'
does not appear ever to have bee
delivered. 1t was produced on III
; hearing by David 4. Jiggitts VIII
was not entitled to the possession (
it, if it had ever been delivered
, the father; and he testified that i
did not have the deed recorded b,
cause Of the troubles Of the countr,
but he did not state that he ever d.
livered it to his father. If the de,
had been delivered, il was neither h
, duty nor within his power to have
, recorded, and therefore this admi
! sion of his goes strongly TO show tn
, !, it was never delivered. But it W
never acknowledged by the grantc
!, : or proved, during the lifetime of Il
grantee; and il is most improbab
!, that it was delivered without eth
! of these requisites being performe
From the evidence it appears qui
evident that the deed was never d
: liv.red, and il is certain that il "
! never recorded. Upon this view,
y y was not valid conveyance, and d
: not constitute a valuable consider
= tion for the conveyance by the d
- |" ceased to David Z. Jiggitts. c,
= - tainly IL was not valuable consl
! Grafton, with respect to the rights
:, the widow; for il conveyed no Ii
!, !, to her husband to the land embrac
:. - in it, and in which il is alleged :
y acquired a right of dover in lieu
n the land conveyed by him.
,e The deed might never have b,
or recorded nor brought TO light, a
in then, Of course, she could ha
q
o- claimed no interest in the land e
70 braccd in It.
tn These circumstances, while they
to show a want Of valuable cons
IN Grafton for the conveyance from
e. father, also cast a suspicion upon
ed good faith Of the arrangement.
as there are other circumstances VIII
,le strengthen this suspicion.
he 1t appears, from the record, I
Ter the deceased was a man Of wea
lte and Of large real estate; that th
he was a disagreement between him
he his wife, which terminated in u
separation in October, 1861, and {
de after that time, bis unkind feeli
to towards her continucd--that he c
I'D veyed all his other lands than th
I a conveyed to his son David, to ano
rth er child and son-in-law, except
ars lands in Yazoo county alledged
Of have been conveyed to him by
for son David; that about three y
is after the separation he made bis
vas in which be bcqueathed to her
tn sum Of ten dollars, and TO his
ing infant children by her he left Ger
nd, real and personal property, upon
ne, coalition however, that his
Of should relinquish all claims Of Do
Ind or other interest in his estate. n
Z A A 4