Case Name: Jesse B. Turner vs. D. Wallace, Administrator
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1840-02
Citations: 1 McMul. 486
Docket Number: 
Parties: Jesse B. Turner vs. D. Wallace, Administrator.
Judges: The whole Court concurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 26
Pages: 328–329

Head Matter:
Jesse B. Turner vs. D. Wallace, Administrator.
The plaintiff lived with his father (defendant’s intestate) from 1828 up to the time of his death in 1834, in the capacity of an overseer, for which he was to receive a certain portion of the crops annually.
It appeared that he never received all of his share of the cotton crops before the death of defendant’s intestate, and that his father acknowledged to one witness that he owed his son more than the value of a certain slave called Anthony, whom he intended the plaintiff should have, over and above his distributive share of his estate. Defendant’s intestate made a will, but for want of proper attestation it was not admitted to prolíate ; in that he left the boy Anthony to plaintiff: Held, that there was a sufficient consideration to support the action of assumpsit, and the verdict of the jury for the plaintiff was sustained, and a new trial refused.
Before O’Neall, J., at Union, Extra Fall Term, 1836.
This was an action of assumpsit, to recover the sum of $800, for work done for the intestate, by the plaintiff, who was his son.
In 1828, the plaintiff was about removing ; the deceased said he must not go ; it would ruin him. He and his family, from that time to the death of Mr. Turner, in 1834, lived on the plantation of the latter. The attended* to the farm, and all of his father’s business. The crops of corn were divided, the cotton crops were sold, and according to the testimony of Mrs. Turner, (the widow of the deceased,) the proceeds were paid to the deceased. The plaintiff got sugar and coffee, generally at the stores in the neighborhood. His debts were generally paid by his father during the whole time he lived with him. The deceased admitted that he was in debt to the plaintiff, and said that at his death he would leave him enough to make it up to him. Shortly before his death, not more than four days, he attempted to make a will, but from not having it properly attested, it could not be admitted to probate. In that paper he bequeathed to the plaintiff, over and above an equal share of his estate, a negro man named Anthony. He told Mr. Page, who drew that paper, that he owed the plaintiff more than the value of Anthony, and wished therefore to secure him to plaintiff. Anthony sold at the sale for rather more than $800. The year in which the deceased died, the plaintiff retained out of the cotton crop sold, one-fourth, as his share. The plaintiff administered on his father’s estate, but his administration was revoked; in a few months, he came to an account before the Ordinary, and did not then make his claim.
See Hunter vs. Hunter, Ex'or of Finley, 3 Strob. 321. An.
The Court thought the case one entirely of fact, and after overruling a motion for a nonsuit, submitted the case to the jury, stating to them that they must be satisfied, before they could find for the plaintiff, that the defendant was liable to pay him for his services, that he was in arrear to him, on that account, and that at the time of making his will, he admitted that he owed the plaintiff as much as the value of Anthony. The jury found for the plaintiff.
The defendant appeals on the annexed grounds:
For a nonsuit:
1st. Because there was no legal promise proven, or any consideration upon which the action can be sustained.
2d. Because the evidence did not take the cause out of the statute of limitations, which was pleaded.
3d. Because, from the evidence, it was fairly to be presumed old Mr. Turner intended what he said as gratuitous.
For a new trial:
1st. On the same grounds, so far as they are applicable to this motion.
2d. Because, it appeared clearly from the evidence, there was no consideration to support a promise, as the plaintiff received full compensation for his services on his father’s plantation, and there was no other consideration attempted to be proved.
Because the verdict is contrary to law and evidence.
Herndon, for the motion. Dawkins, contra.

Opinion:
* Curia, per
Gantt, J.
We see no reason for disturbing the verdict of the jury, and the motion is dismissed.
The whole Court concurred.