Case Name: Uriah Sally, Administrator of John Young, against John Sandifer, Administrator of Abraham Tyler
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1818-05
Citations: 2 Mill 445
Docket Number: 
Parties: Uriah Sally, Administrator of John Young, against John Sandifer, Administrator of Abraham Tyler.
Judges: GrimJcé, Colcock, JYott, Cheves, and Gantt, J-concurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 9
Pages: 445–446

Head Matter:
Uriah Sally, Administrator of John Young, against John Sandifer, Administrator of Abraham Tyler.
landing sow and conveyed,and í?¿Kgree!íg tó rescind the coutract,theconyeyanees were given tatb“hey S given for the purchase-money were not given l!eingBdea.i,arthe notes are sued for. [ivei1dden‘heatofpa^ [“give" ataíáí! ^“tod"othe?wta« thaqbydeed.
This case was tried before Mr. Justice Johnson, ' at Orangeburgh, at October Term, 18 ¡7, and nm . . . _ _ t t -i was this. Ihe plaintiff’s intestate had sold and x conveyed to the defendant’s intestate a tract of _ _ _ ,• it. • land, and the defendant’s intestate had in consi7 deration given to him two promissory notes, for . * the recovery of which this action is brought. The original parties, in their lifetimes, agreed to yesemd this contract, and the deed of conveyanee made by the plaintiff’s intestate was deli- * . vered to him, and. is supposed to haye been de~ stroyed; but the notes still remained in his possession ; and very shortly after both died, and the notes being found in his possession, this action was brought, and the only question was, whether the re-delivery of the deed itself amounted to such arecision of the contract as would vest the land in the plaintiff’s intestate, and thus defeat the consideration of the notes. The presiding Judge stated to the Jury, that he thought it would not, hut under such circumstances as he believed left on their minds the impression that he thought the equity of the case with the defendant, and they found a verdict for him: and a motion is now made for a new trial.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by-
Mr. Justice Johnson.
I think now, as I did on the trial below, that the land having vested in the defendant's intestate by the conveyance to him, it would not re-i vest except by deed. And I moreover think that I erred in not expressing this opinion to the Jury in more decided terms than I did. I am, therefore, of opinion that a new trial ought to be granted. The land vested in the defendant's intestate by the conveyance from the plaintiff's intestate, and the only contract relied upon to re-vest it in the plaintiff's intestate, was by parol, which is clearly void.
GrimJcé, Colcock, JYott, Cheves, and Gantt, J-concurred.