Bateman v. Bateman.Bateman v. Bateman.
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Taylor
delivered the opinion of the Court:
The question in this case depends upon the true construction of the act of 1792, ch. 6, to ascertain which, it is necessary to consider the act in connexion with that of 1784, ch. 10, the seventh section of which it is its professed object to amend and explain. The preamble to thаt section declares, that many persons have been injured by secret deeds of gift to children and others, and for want of formal bills of sale. The enacting clause provides, that all sales of slaves shall be in Writing, and that they, аs well as deeds of gift, shall be recorded. The exposition of this law, made soon after its passage, and gеnerally acquiesced in since that period, was, that the design of the Legislature being to protect the rights оf creditors and purchasers, the want of a written transfеr could be set up against the validity of a sale, only in cases where the rights of those persons were to be affect *99 ed j that as between the parties to thе transaction? it was valid and effectual, although madе by parol. The. act of 1792, having the same object in .view, dispenses with the necessity of a bill of sale in every сase, manifestly under the impression, in the framers of the law, that the rights of creditors and purchasers might be as effectually guarded, by superadding delivery to the Common Law mоde of selling a chattel, as by a written evidence оf the sale. The expressions of the act are, <e that lona Jide sаles of slaves, accompanied with delivery,” and whiсh would have been good before the passing of the act of 1784, shall bo held valid. But a bona fide sale without delivery, would have been held good at Common. Law ; and if the Legislaturе designed to alter the Common Law mode of transfer, thеy might have effected that object by a simple reрeal of the clause in question. It was believed either that a delivery was necessary to the ■validity of a Cоmmon Law sale, or the delivery was substituted in lieu of Ihe bill of sale, for the sake of creditors and others. The first supрosition is inadmissible; and in adopting the latter, we must apрly to the act the same principles of construction which have governed the decisions of casеs arising“under the act of 1784. Hence it follows, that a delivery is necessary in all cases where the rights of creditors or third persons are affected; but between the рarties themselves, a bona fide sale according to the rulе of the Common Law, effectually transfers the proрerty ; and the sale in this case being of the latter description, the rule for a new trial must be made absolute.
The General Assembly, at their last Session, having directed the Judges to appoiilt one of their body to preside in thе Supreme Court, who should be styled “ Chief-Justice of the Supreme Court,” the fudges at this Term proceeded to make such appointment, when the Honourable John Louis Taxioh, Esquire, was unanimously appointed.