Case Name: Steel against M'Knight
Court: South Carolina Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1789
Citations: 1 Bay 64
Docket Number: 
Parties: Steel against M’Knight.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 64–65

Head Matter:
Steel against M’Knight.
A. makes be-iorc 8, witness a verbal gift APhisPgrand° «or^in these words, “Sear witness to this gij’11 I give, grandson,” &?c. The property repossession of death f1 after which itis appraised and sold, with the rest of his estate, in consequence of no person apj)earing on behalf of the minor, .to make a claim, or forbid the appraisement and sale. This gift is good and valid against a bmiafide purchaser or holder of the property.
THIS was an action of trover for a negro woman slave, The claim of the plaintiff was Venus, and her six children. founded on a gift from his grandfather, made to him when was a k°y, upwards of eighteen years ago.
It appeared, from the evidence of one Leslie, at the trial, 1 r 7 7 1 that he was employed by Barnes, the grandfather of Steel, as a ploughman, when the gift took place. He was called one day out of the field, where he was at labour, by Barnes, to be a witness to the gift. When he came to the house, ^arnes told him, that he had given the wench Venus (who was then a girl) to his grandson John Steel: upon which he called the girl, and put her hand into that of his grandson, saying to Leslie, “ Bear witness to this gift: I give this girl u to my grandson, John Steel.” The plaintiff and the negro girl lived with Barnes till the day of his death: after which, this girl was appraised as part of Barnes's property, and sold with others at public sale. Barnes died intestate, and no person appeared on the part of the boy, to forbid the appraisement and sale. It was admitted, that the wench after-wards came fairly into the possession of M'Knight, the defendant 5 so that
The only question was, whether, under the foregoing circumstances, the plaintiff was entitled to a recovery against a bona jide purchaser, after such a lapse of time ?

Opinion:
Grimke, J.
in his charge to the jury, held, that the gift was complete on the part of old Barnes, and from that moment, the property vested in the plaintiff. That Steel had never sold or made any transfer of her j and being an infant under the age of discretion, no laches or neglect could be imputable to him durante minoritate. He mentioned that several cases had been determined, where gifts from parents and relations had been deemed good and valid, which were attended with much less solemnity than in the present one, and where the property had remained in the possession of donors and executors many years after the gift. Our courts had always inclined much in support of these kind of gifts to children and married women.
Verdict for plaintiff, which was acquiesced in by defendant's counsel.