The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1906-06-20
The State of South Carolina,
County of Abbeville.
tt tho Drohoto TOOrt

The State of South Carolina,
County of Abbeville.
In the Probate Court.
In the matter of the Estate of T. l..
Haddon, Deceased.
P. B. Carwile, Executor, Petitioner.
Petition for Partial Settlement.
P.B. Carwile, the active executor of
the estate Of T. L. Haddon, deceased,
petitioned the Court of Probate for a
partial settlement of said estate.
April q, 1906, was fixed for said set
Element, and notice thereof was duly
published, in which notice all persons
having claims against the estate of the
deceased were required TO file the same
on or before the date fixed therein, or
be barred.
In accordance Herewith, Mrs. E. A.
Haddon, widow of deceased, filed two
separate claims-one for the sum OF
one thousand dollars Isl 10000 mon
ey received by her husband and for
which he had never accounted to her.
for q tract of land which belonged to
her, and to which, at the instance OF
her said husband she bad exc ecuted q
deed to H. r. Crawford. The other
claim was for eleven hundred and
seven dollars and seventy.five cents
Isl ,107.75) being The val lue OF rent cot.
ton, received by her husband from ten
ants who worked the land of the
claimant, and Tor which he had never
accounted TO her.
To the payment of these claims the
residuary legatees under the will o1
the saia IT. L. Haddon objected.
Thereupon further proceedings in the
matter of the proposed settlement were
suspended until The 5th day of May,
1906, in order that testimony for and
against said claims might be produced.
In the meantime the reslduary lega-
tees were formally notified to be pres
ent on said 5th day of May to inter-
vene in their own behalf, and were, at
least constructively, before the Court.
M. P. DeBruhl, Esq, appeared as at
torney for Mrs. Haddon, the claimant,
and w. N. Graydon, Esq, for the re-
siduary legatees.
In order to a proper understanding
of much of the testimony taken in the
case, the following statement is deem.
ed necessary, viz:
On the 22nd day of July, 1889, T. l..
Haddon executed last will and testa-
ment in which he gave 10 his wife, E.
A. Haddon, besides certain articles OF
personal property, two tracts OF land,
one known as the Home tract" con-
tanning $40 acres; and the other
known as the ELLIS tract" and con.
tanning l63 acres. He then provided
that, after the payment of bis debts,
the residue and remainder of his estate
should 60 in equal shares to his broth
ers and sisters.
Several years after the execution ol
this will, to wit: on the 18th day Of
April, 1895, testator duly executed and
delivered TO his wife, the said E. A.
Haddon, o deed to the Identical two
tracts of land mentioned and described
in the aforesaid willard, of course
from the date of this deed, these two
tracts of land belonged TO Mrs. Had
don, Just as much so as If she haC
bought and paid for them.
From the testimony it appears thai
it was q part of the ELLIS tract" thai
was sold to Crawford for which MIR
Haddon was paid the 81 ,0O0.0 .00-the
money now claimed by Mrs. Haddon-
and it was a portion of the Home
tract" all of which was embraced ir
the deed from Haddon to his wife, tha
he received the rents for which Mrs
Haddon is now contendiDg.
Taking these claims up in the ordel
in which I have stated them, l shal
first consider the claim for the 81, ,0O0.0l
received by Haddon from Crawford fo
the Ellis lands.
1t was developed by the testimony
that Mr.. Haddon on the Both day o
March, 1887, executed mortgage TO
$5OO.0O in favor of Mrs. D. J. Ward
law, on this Ellis tract of land. which
mortgage was still of force and unsat
isfied when said tract of land was solt
to Crawford, but of which mortgag
Mrs. Haddon claims to pave had n
knowledge, when she executed tn
deed to Crawford.
Upon the advice Of his attorney, w
N. Graydon, ESQ.,, Crawford refused
to pay for the land until this mortgag
was satisfied-accordingly, by direc
ton of Haddon, the mortgage, thel
amounting to $5O00O, (the inte rest pre-
sumably having been kept paid up
was satisfied out of the 81 100000. ant
the remaining $5OO.OO was paid over Il
Mr.. Haddon.
AS against this claim, it is contend
ed by counsel for the residuary lega
tees, that, Mrs. Haddon, having mad
no demand on her husband. during hi
life time, for this money, but on th
contrary having acquiesced in his re
ceiving it and not accounting to he
for it for considerable length of time
the presumption is that she intende'
it as q gift to him-and that whethe
she did or not, ertainly as to 80 muc]
of it rs was applied to the satisfaction
of the Wardlaw mortgage, it was
just and proper appropriation of tn
same.
While Mrs. Haddon, under Sectio
400 Of the Code of Procedure, could nc
testify as to what transpired betwee
herself and her husband, he bein
dead, which induced her to execut
the deed to Crawford to the Ellis traC