Case Name: W. R. Willbourn, vs. John Parham
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1824-11
Citations: 1 Harp. 375
Docket Number: 
Parties: W. R. Willbourn, vs. John Parham.
Judges: Johnson, Huger and Richardson,. Justices, concurredF
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 16
Pages: 375–380

Head Matter:
W. R. Willbourn, vs. John Parham.
Plaintiff and Defendant claimed the satne slaves, under different bills of sale from one W. B. Held that W. B. was a competent witness to prove that plaintiff’s bill of sale had been obtained by fraud.
This was an action of trover for two slaves; It was admitted that the slaves at one time belonged to Washington Blassingame. John Nance, the first witness called, proved a bil of sale to which he was a subscribing witness, from Washington Blassingame to the plaintiff, dated the 8th of* August, 1820 He said the consideration of the bill of sale was a debt whici Blassingame owed Willboúrn and himself, as partners in trade, of about $130; as well as other debts which Willbourn paid for him: That Blassingame had frequently applied to him and Willbourn to purchase these negroes, and he believed it was a fair, bona fide transaction: He had heard Blassingame several times afterwards say he was satisfied with the sale. Flemming B. Nance was also a subscribing witness to the bill of sale. He saw no money paid, but he heard Blassingame afterwards ac knowledge that he had received the principal part of the consideration money.
The bill of sale was for foür negroes, and for several articles of household furniture; indeed, it appeared to contain all the property that Blassingame owned. The negroes were not present at the execution of the bill of sale.
Daniel Michel, said he was the sheriff of Union District at the time. He had levied executions on the negroes, to the amount of six hundred dollars and had the negroes in his posses-4 sion. They were advertised for sale on the first Monday in August' 1820, which was the 7th of the month. On the morning of that day, Washington Blassingame and Willbourn, the plaintiff in this action, came to him. They informed him that Mrs Blassingame, the mother of Washington, wished him tc purchase her land; pay off these executions, and let her have the negroes. He told them that he would postpone the sale until the next day: in the mean time, he would inquire into the title, and if he found it to be good, he would accede to that arrangement; provided Mrs. Blassingame would come forward the next morning and make him titles. Upon, enquiry he became satisfied with her title. The next morning, which was Tuesday, Mrs. Blassingame, her son and Willbourn all came together to him. He told them he was ready to accept the proposal which had been made to him the day before, 'i itles were then drawn 'and executed by Mrs. Blassingame: She the®, directed him to deliver the negroes to Willbourn and he did so. The two negroes he thought were worth about ‡ 800.
Here the testimony for the plaintiff closed.
A 'Mr. Stokes, was called for the defendant.
He said that a few day before the negroes were to be sold, a contract took place between Washington Blassingame and his mother, the purport of which was that she might have the negroes, provided she would sell her land and pay off the debts for which they were under execution. That on Tuesday morning, he came to the court house (where the negroes were to be sold) in company with Mrs. Blassingame, Washington and Willbourn. He did not know that Willbourn Was then acquainted with the contract made between Washington and his mother; he mentioned it to' him as they were riding together and told him that they were then going to the court house, for the purpose of carrying it into execution. Willbourn said he wished to get & bill of sale of them himself, to recover a debt which Blassingame owed him.' When the sheriff delivered the negroes to Willbourn, he brought them and then delivered to Mrs. Blassingame. She took one of them on her horse behind her and got a friend to take the other' and carried them home.
Isttac Harlan testified that early in August 1820, on a Thursday evening, he did not recollect what day of the month, Washington Blassingame and Willbourn came to his house and said they were going to Parham’s (the defendant’s) to try and steal away those negroes and wanted him to go with them, but he declined going.
Francis Parham proved a bill of sale from Mrs. Blassin-game to defendant for the negroes, dated 16th August, 1820. He saw only five dollars paid; Mrs. Blassingame said that was the last payment. :
James Smith said he had drawn a bill of sale for these ne-groes from Washington Blassingame to his mother. The Wednesday after the first Monday in August, 1820, he fell in with Willbourn going to his (Willbourn’s) store. He desired Smith .not to go by the store, for Mrs. Blassingame and Washington were there; Washington was about to execute a bill of sale to his mother for these negroes, and he did not wish Smith to go there as they would wish him to be a witness to it. Willbourn however, told him that he had made himsélf safjp, and that he would persuade Washington to make a bill of sale tó his mother to make her easy. The bill of sale was here produced, purporting to have been executed on the 29th of August, 1820, it was signed “ Washington Blassingame, if he can, thereby seeming to imply a doubt whether he had aright to execute such a deed. Mr. Smith said that on the 25th of the same month, he saw the bill of sale; it was then executed, although it purported to have been done on the 29th. It appeared that Mrs. Blassingame could neither read nor write and might therefore be easily imposed upon in the date of the instrument.
Washington Blassingame, was here introduced.
The object of his .estimony was to impeach the bill of sale to Willbourn, as fraudulent; having been given to protect his property against his creditors.
Two objections were made to his competency; 1st. That he was incompetent to impeach or invalidate his own act; 2nd. That parol evidence could not be given to. contradict a deed. The objections were overruled and the witness was sworn.' He Said he had been imprudent and profligate, and had become much involved and was in danger of spending all his property. He said that Willbourn had pursued him day and night, to persuade him to give a bill of sale of bis property, for the purpose of keeping it from his creditors. He had at length yielded, and that was the sole object of the bill of sale. Willbourn protested most solemnly and pledged his honor as a Mason (they both belonging to the order) that he would never take advantage of him. Willbourn had never paid a cent for them- It was true he owed Willbourn something, he did not know how much; he never had a settlement with him, and if his account had been credited m jyillbourn’s books, it was without his knowledge or consent. Willbourn had paid some debts for him, but they were paid out of his own funds. He said Willbourn was present when the contract, was made between himself and his mother, and that it was in pursuance of that contract that the negroes were delivered to her. When he was about to execute the bill of sale to his mother, Willbourn desired him to do it in such a way as to render it ineffectual, and it was for that purpose he added the words “ if he can.”
Several very respectable gentlemen were called to the character of Blassingame. They said he had been imprudent and profligate, but they thought him a young man of a very high sense of honor, and that they would believe him on his oath as. soon as any mao whatever.
Mr. Naneo was called again in reply.
He proved the payment of several debts by Willbourn for Blassingame. He said the credit given on their books to Blas-aingame was done in his presence and with his consent. He said the hill of sale to Willbourn and' the one to Mrs. Blassin-game were both executed on the same day; — Willbourn’s in the morning and Mrs. Blassingame’s in the evening of Tuesday, the 8th of August. He afterwards said he might be mistaken with regard to Mrs. Blassingame’s; it might perhaps have been the next day that it was executed, but he was very confident that Willbourn’s was done on the morning of the 8th, at his store. Blassingame was here called back. He stud he was sure Willbourn’s bill of sale was not executed until after'the 8tb, for he recollected distinctly that he stayed on Monday night at a Mrs. Woodson’s, and went the next morning to his mother’s; that Willhourn met him there, and they all went together to the court house, and that he was not at Willbourn’s store that day.
Verdict for defendant. Motion for a new trial, on the grounds that Washington Blassingame was an incompetent witness, and that the verdict of the jury was against law and evidence.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Mott.
There are but two legal questions submitted in this case: First, whether Washington Blassingame was a competent witness: Secondly, whether- being competent, his testimony ought to be received to contradict a deed.
His competency is resisted on the ground that no person shall be permitted to invalidate an instrument which he has himself signed. The only case in which I have known such- a principle to be laid down, is the case of Walton and Shelly, 1 D. & E. 300. But in the case of Bent. & Baker, 3d D. & E. 27. all the judges of the King's Bench declared that the rule must be confined to negotiable instruments. It has since been exploded altogether in England. But it is not necessary to bring up the question now, for this is a deed, in relation to which it is universally admitted that the rule does not apply.
The second question is equally well settled. Parol evidence ought n,et to be admitted to contradict a deed, unless it be to impeach it for fraud. But fraud will contaminate the most solemn instrument; and there are but few cases where fraud can be reached but through the medium of oral testimony. The testimony of a witness who comes to impeach his own deed on the ground of fraud, is always to be received with caution. But the Jurors are the judges of credibility. This case did not depend on the testimony of Blassingame alone. The principal facts were strongly corroborated by other witnesses: and if their testimony was, entitled to belief, a greater tissue of fraud was never developed in a court of justice. The court are of opinion that the motion cannot prevail on the legal grounds.
A. W»Thompson., for motion. Williams, contra.
With regard to the. facts, 1 would only observe that the plaintiff's counsel seem to take it for granted that the sale to Willbourn was anterior to that to Mrs. Blassingame:. Bat it will be recollected that the contract between Mrs. .Blassingame and her son was entered into before the seventh of the month, and that it was actually carried into execution and the negroes .delivered on the morning of the eighth: That Willbourn was then present, assisting in the negotiation, and actually delivered the negroes to her. Although his bill of sale bears date the eighth of the month, Washington B'lassm'game swears it was not executed until after that daju And Stokes swears that Will-bourn told him on that day, that he wished to get a bill of sale of them, but not that he had one. But even if he had one then, in his pocket, it was attended with such circumstances as entitled it to. no regard. The testimony, therefore, well authorised the verdict which the jury have found; and the motion must be ,¡refused.
Johnson, Huger and Richardson,. Justices, concurredF