Case Name: Cline vs. Black
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1828-01
Citations: 4 McCord 431
Docket Number: 
Parties: Cline vs. Black.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 15
Pages: 431–434

Head Matter:
Cline vs. Black.
An instrument to convey a freehold must be under seal.
An agreement purporting to be between two parties is void, unless signed by both. . ■ '
Covenant on the part of a lessee to keep the house in good repair, if the house is destroyed by fire, he must rebuild; and if the lessee stands by and permits the landlord to rebuild for his own benefit and sets up no claim, it is an abandonment of all claim on his part.
This was an action to try titles to an unexpired term in a house and lot in the town of Columbia. The plaintiff set up a title to it under the following writing, signed by the defendant, viz: — “ South Carolina, Richland District, Columbia, Nov 9th, 1822. Articles of agreement entered into between John Black, of the one part, and William Cline, on the other. The said John Black doth give the house and lot adjoining his own up to William Cline, free of all rents, tax, or expense of any kind, only that the said William Cline shall keep the house and ten ement in good repair. I, John Black, do bind my heirs, administrators, or assigns, to let the said William Cline live in said house as long as my daughter Jane shall live, or until my youngest child is of age. (Signed,) John Black. Witness, (signed,) D. E. Sweney, Cha’s. L. Cline.”
The plaintiff had married the defendant’s daughter, and immediately after the execution of this writing he went into possession of the house, and remained there until it was burnt, about two years after, and hád in the mean time incurred some expen ;es in repairs. After it was burnt, the defendant built another house on the same lot, to recover possession of which was the object of the present action.
IfPCord, for the defendant,
moved for a nonsuit, on the ground that the instrument under which the plaintiff claimed, purported to convey a freehold, and therefore should have been under seal.
Gaillabd, J. who presided, granted the nonsuit.
M’Clintoclt, for the plaintiff,
appealed, and moved to set aside the nonsuit. ' This instrument has two periods of limitation — the life of Mrs. Cline, and the coming of age of the youngest daughter, if one make a lease for twenty-one years, if the lessee shall so long live; this is a good lease for years, and a certainty in an uncertainty. — 1 Inst. 46. A deed is to be taken strongly against the grantor, and if it can enure in different ways, the grantee may take it in such a way as shall be most advantageous to him. Jackson vs. Blodget, 16 Johns. 172 ; S John. 381.
Cord contra.
The instrument purports to be made by both parties, but is only signed by one. It is imperfect. Besides there was no consideration, and therefore' as a contract, not obligatory on Black. It purports to convey a lease for life, which is a freehold, and therefore should have been under seal. Livery of seizin could only be made by deed, under seal, with two witnesses — Jacob L. D. Tit. Lease. 1 Sullivan’s Lectures, 140 to 144; Plow, 421, 422, 438 ; Gr.-Eliz.5G0; 1 Cruise, 82; 3 Dallas,"486. All writings not under seal are parol contracts. Rann vs. Hughes, 4‘T. E. 347. But a parol gift of lands creates only a tenancy at will. 1 Johns. -Cases, 33; 1 Church’s Dig. 485, Tit. Gift. Tit. Ejectment, Sec. 6. — Only a terra for years is good without a seal. ■ Roberts on Frauds, 246, 248. The Act of 1785, (Pub. Laws, 381, 'ses 45; Griffith’s L-. R. -833-,)" requires all transfers of real property for life,’or a greater estate to be written, signed, -sealed, and recorded, or the deed shall be voidand no such deed shall be admitted to be recorded, unless 'acknowledged by tbe'.grantor, or proof of - the ■ signing,'sealing, and delivery'thereof, be made in open Court, by the oath of two credible witnesses.— The act of Í788, (Pub. Laws 453, Sec. 1,) -admits the deed to be proved out of Court by tbe subscribing, witness making the usual oath-of the oxeculioivof the deed. Besides, upon the covenant to repair, the lessee was bound to repair upon the -burning of the house. 4 Dane’s'Dig. 375;. Bullock vs. Dommift, 6, D/..& E. 650; 2, Shunt!. 422, a. and note (2.) Plaintiff stood by- and saw the defendant rebuild the house. It was an abandonment of all claim.

Opinion:
Curia per
Johnson, J.
A variety of grounds have beén-urged on the argument, especially in the opposition, and it would have afforded me pleasure to have followed the counsel through them all, if the press of other matters of equal importance had admitted of it; but the justice, as well as the law of the case, is so clearly with, the defen--dant that it is deemed unnecessary.
The plaintiff claims under an instrument which purports to be an agreement between two parties, and is signed by only one, and is without seal, or consideration. The house, the only thing of value connected with tbe premises, wa^ accidentally destroyed by fire.' Tbe plaintiff, by tbe terms of the instrument, was bound to repair, but he neglected to do so, and the place became derelict, andho stood by when the defendant erected on the lot an extensive and valuable building without making any objection,which last circumstance according to the case of Tarrant vs. Terry, 1 Bay, 238, was in itself a sufficient bar to his recovery; and upon the whole, I scarcely recollect a case in which there were so many well founded objections to the plaintiff's right of recovery. The motion is refused.
Nonsuit sustained.