Case Name: James H. Johns ads. Elizabeth Johns
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1821-05
Citations: 1 McCord 132
Docket Number: 
Parties: James H. Johns ads. Elizabeth Johns.
Judges: Justices Johnson and Richardson, concurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 12
Pages: 132–136

Head Matter:
James H. Johns ads. Elizabeth Johns.
Where the defendant was executor of the plaintiff’s husband, and the ■ ■ plaintiff had a life estate, under the will, in the whole estate, and she continued to live on the plantation, where all the estate was, and had tne same in use, the Court Held, that the executor had a right to sell a mare and colt to pay the debts of the testator, and that the widow remaining on the place, where she had a right to be, and where tes-tutor’s property ought to be kept, and of which she ought to have, had the use, could not be regarded as an unconditional assent to her taking the legacy, so as to divest the executor of the right of possession.
Th-IS was an action on the case. It appeared that the plaintiff was the widow of defendant’s testator. The whole estate had been left to her for life. She had continued in possession of the whole property for two years after the death of her husband. Among other things she had possession of a mare and colt, which the executor ordered to be sold to satisfy an execution against the estate. The amount was nine dollars, which she offered to pay, but he refused, saying that there was another debt; and he-further proved that he had satisfied another execution to the' amount of §98 and costs. ,
A non-suit was applied for and refused by the Judge on the circuit. The case was then submitted to the jury, when a verdict was rendered for the plaintiff.
The motion for a non-suit was now renewed in this Court, and for a new trial should it be refused.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Huger
delivered the opinion of the Court.
At the instant of a testator's death, the interest in all the personal property he owned vests in his executor. He has an absolute dominion over it, which cannot be destroyed but by operation of law or by some act of his own. (Toller, 169, 239.) He is bound to pay the debts; and this is a paramount' duty to satisfying the legacies. The plaintiff in this case is only a legatee, and ought to have been postponed to the creditors. Nor could she as legatee, (even had there been no debts,) possess herself of the property, without the assent of the executor. If she had, he might have maintained an action' of trespass against her for sc doing. (See Toller, 240, and Bac. Title Ex'r and Adm'r L. 3, 84, and Dyer, 254.) It is contended, however, in this case, that the executor had assented to the possession- of the legatee, and that his dominion had consequently ceased, and could not be resumed. An executor like every other holder of property, may sell or relinquish possession of it. But his having so done, must, as in every other case, be proved; and the proof must be governed by the □ame rules, as in other cases. It is laid down in Toiler's Law of Ex'r. that a very slight assent on the part of an executor will vest a legacy; and so will very slight evidence, satisfy the mind in every case of that having been done which ought to have been done. In this case the debts had not been paid, and as plaintiff was sole legatee, if her continuance 'on the plantation, where all the assets remained, were a delivery of the property in question, it was a delivery of all the testator had, which would have been wrong, as it was the duty of the executor to retain sufficient to satisfy the debts. The executor had no right to turn the widow out of doors; her remaining then on the plantation, where the cattle, horses, &c. of the testator ought to be kept, and of the use of which she ought not to have been deprived, cannot be regarded as an uncondition-i al assent to her taking the legacy.
The mare and colt being as much under his control ass his own property, the plaintiff can no more sustain this action than she could have sustained one for any part of defendant's own property.
The decision, of the Circuit Court must therefore be set aside, and a non-suit ordered.
Justices Johnson and Richardson, concurred.