Case Name: Abraham Brown and Evander Kirby vs. Henry S. Dickinson, Executor
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1858-06
Citations: 10 Rich. Eq. 408
Docket Number: 
Parties: Abraham Brown and Evander Kirby vs. Henry S. Dickinson, Executor.
Judges: Dunkin and Wardlaw, CC., concurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Equity Reports
Volume: 31
Pages: 408–410

Head Matter:
Abraham Brown and Evander Kirby vs. Henry S. Dickinson, Executor.
Jurisdiction — Injunction—Trover for Slaves.
A bill will not lie to enjoin an action of trover for slaves, and quiet plaintiff in his possession.
BEFORE DUNKIN', OH., AT SUMTER,
JUNE, 1858.
The bill alleged that in the year 1835, Ann Sessions made a deed of gift of a negro girl named Abbe, to her grand daughter, Esther Elizabeth Sessions, in terms which created in the donee a sole and separate estate, and set forth, in an exhibit, a copy of the deed, taken from the registry; that said deed is not in the possession of plaintiffs; that Esther Elizabeth afterwards intermarried with Benjamin W. Brown, who died in ] 855; that after the death of her husband, Esther Elizabeth sold four slaves, the issue of Abbe, born after the execution of the deed, to the plaintiff, Abra-nam Brown; and thereupon Henry S. Dickinson, the defendant, executor of the said Benjamin W. Brown, brought an action of trover against plaintiffs for an alleged conversion of said slaves. The bill prayed a discovery of the deed or its contents, and also an injunction. The defendant answered, denying all knowledge of the deed.
The defendant moved to dismiss the bill, on the ground that the plaintiffs, having failed to obtain the discovery, the Court had no jurisdiction to proceed further with the cause. For the plaintiffs, it was replied, that, there being no trustee named in the deed of gift, upon the intermarriage of Esther Elizabeth, her husband became trustee, and that upon his death the legal title went to his executor; that a separate estate in a married woman being a creature of the Court of Equity and not known at law, the title of the plaintiffs would •not be recognized by the law Court on the trial of the action of trover, even though the plaintiffs should prove the loss and contents of the deed, and it followed that plaintiffs had no remedy except in this Court, where alone separate estates in married women are recognized.
His Honor refused to dismiss the bill. The defendant appealed. ,
Moses, Bellinger, for appellant.
Spain, Richardson, contra.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Johnston, Ch.
It would require much investigation before the Court could determine that the interest conferred by the deed upon Esther Elizabeth Sessions, constituted a separate estate in her; and, of course, whether, upon her marriage, the property did not vest jure mariti, in her husband.
But it is not necessary to decide these points. The persons to whom she sold the property after she became discovert, have been sued, in trover, by the executor of her husband: and they have filed this bill for a discovery ag ainst him, and also asking tha't his suit be enjoined by this Court.
They have obtained no discovery; and the question is whether when a Court of concurrent jurisdiction, so far as the right of property is concerned, has cognizance of that right, this Court will interfere, unless it can grant the plaintiffs here a more complete remedy than they can obtain in the other Court. It is manifest we cannot. These plaintiffs have the possession: and we could do no more than quiet them in it by our injunction. The principle involved is analogous to that upon which we should decree a delivery of the slaves to them, if we should be of opinion the title is in them. But the law Court, if it should determine that their title is good, would give judgment against their adversary, and leave them in possession as they now are. If, on the other hand, it should sustain the action of trover brought against them, the> effect would be to vest the slaves in them; such being the effect of a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in trover. So that let the result of the suit at law be which way it may, the plaintiffs here will be secure in the possession of the slaves:— to decree which possession is the only ground of jurisdiction in this Court.
It is ordered that the decree be reversed, and the bill dismissed.
Dunkin and Wardlaw, CC., concurred.
Decree reversed.