Case Name: Divine vs. Bullock, &c.
Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Kentucky
Decision Date: 1861-06-11
Citations: 3 Met. 418
Docket Number: 
Parties: Divine vs. Bullock, &c.
Judges: 
Reporter: Kentucky Reports
Volume: 60
Pages: 418–420

Head Matter:
CASE 7 — IN EQUITY —
JUNE 11.
Divine vs. Bullock, &c.
APPEAL PROM MONTGOMERY CIRCUIT COURT.
’ In 1837 a father conveyed a slave to his married d.augbter until her son by a previous marriage should attain the age of -21 years, and then to the son. Her husband hold said slave in her right when her son became of age in 1840. In 1839 or 1840 the son left Kentucky, where he had resided since his birth, and never returned, but died in 1846 or 1847. Held — that the right of action of the son accrued upon his arrival at age, and the husband's continued possession of the slave for live years thereafter, without suit, barred that right. (4 Munf., 504.)
By the deed of 1837 the slave in contest was conveyed to Mrs. Divine until her son, James Wight, who was a child by a previous marriage, should attain the age of twenty-one, and then to the said James Wight. In this action after the death of the latter, for partition of the slave, John, amongst his heirs, at law, the appellant claimed the slave as sole owner. • The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court. The cir7 cuit court having decided against the claim of appellant he appealed.
K. Farrow, for appellant,
cited 5 Mon., 503 ; 2 Mar., 136; 1 Litt., 299; 1 J.J. Mar:, 26; 11 B. Mon., -277; Plowd. 25, 28 j Go. Litt., 49, a, b; 1 Co., 66; lb., 138; Blackstone’s Com., 319, (side page, 398;) 1 Dana, 236; 3 Dev’s. Rep., 263; 2 lb., 185; 1 .Mei.,475 ; lb., 498 ; 2 Rev: Statutes, page 127, sectiom 2; 3 Dana, 396. ‘
•Simpson & Scott, for appellee's,
cited 3 Litt., 288; 3 Mon., 538; 1 Dana, 574; 2 J. J. Mar., 469; 1 Dana, 17, 267 ; 3 Bibb, 39; 1 Marsh., 533; 5 Litt., 309; 3 Mon., 280; 4 lb.., 537; 2 Dana, 163 ; 3 B. Mon., 131. ' .
Geo. Smith, on same side,
cited 4 Bibb, 35; 1 Dana, 267. ■

Opinion:
JUDGE BULLITT
delivered the opinion or the court: (Judge Peters did not sit in this case.).
The only question is, whether or not the appellant was the-sole owner of the slave John.
In 1837 the father of appellant's wife conveyed John to her until her son, James Wight, should attain the age of 21 years, and then to the said James Wight. According to .the agreed facts James Wight became of age in 1840; in 1839 or 1840he left the 'State of Kentucky, in- which he had resided since his birth, and never returned, but died in 1846 or 1847. Appellant held said slave in right of his wife when Wight became of age. Wight's right of action then .accrued, and'appellant's continued^ possession for five years thereafter, without suit, barred Wight's right. (Garland vs. Enos, 4 Munf., 504.)
The judgment of the court below, being inconsistent herewith, is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to dismiss the suit of the appellees so far as it relates to said slave.