15 Ala. 91 | Ala. | 1848
The bill in this cause was filed by the defendant in error, on the 8th May, 1846, and charges, that in 1843, Richard Hunley, the late husband of complainant, departed this life intestate, leaving complainant his widow, and Ransom G. Hunley his son, and only heir at law. That after the decease of his father, but in the same year, Ransom G. Hunley departed this life, having made and published his last will and testament in the county of Lowndes, by which he appointed Caroline M. Hunley executrix, said Caroline being his widow. That said will has been duly recorded,
. The bill further charges, that in the year 1837, Richard removed from the State of South Carolina to Lowndes county, and settled on the premises of Ransom, his son, and they there commenced working their hands together in the business of planting, and continued there until the year 1843, When both of them died. That the crop of 1843, made by the labor of their hands, had not then been sold, nor the profits accruing upon it that year, divided; but was afterwards sold by said Caroline, and she. has failed to account for the same, as will appear by her inventory, exhibited to the .orphans’ court. Complainant avers her ignorance of the quantity of produce raised on the farm in 1843, and prays a discovery of the proceeds, which have come into the hands of said administratrix.
The bill also alledges, that a partial distribution has been made of the estate of said Richard, and ¡that it will be ready for final settlement as soon as Caroline returns the.eight slaves, and the proceeds of the crop, as assets. That the debts due to and from the estate have been settled./
The complainant prays subpoena against the said widow
The answers deny that the eight slaves belong to the estate of the said Richard, but on the contrary, aver that they were given by him in February, 1838, to his four grand children, viz: Mary, Peter, Ann and Ransom, and were then delivered by him to Ransom G. Hunley for them, he being their father and natural guardian, and remained in his possession up to the time of his death. That said slaves have always, since the gift, been known and regarded as property belonging to said children.
As respects the profits of the farm for the year 1843, the answers aver that the parties lived together and cultivated the farm, under an agreement that the said Ransom should take charge of the slaves and stock, and carry on the business of farming on his premises, and that he should support and provide comfortably for the said Richard and his family — pay all expenses of carrying on the business, and provide said Richard, from time to time, such small sums of money as he might need or require, and the said Ransom G. Hunley was to have and receive the whole proceeds, above the expenses and outlays aforesaid, for his own proper use, and free from all account to any one. That the two families, stock, &c. belonging to both estates of Richard and Ransom, were supported on the produce of the crop of 1843, until crop time in the ensuing year, and nearly consumed the corn, fodder, &c. That one hundred and eight bales of cotton were raised, one hundred and three of which the administratrix has sold, as appears by returns of sales made by commission merchants, and attached to her answer. That in the making of the crop of 1843, Ransom worked about thirty hands, and Richard about twelve ; and the said Caroline insists that if she is bound to account for the proceeds of the crop of 1843, she should only account for the proceeds of six hands, after allowing a deduction for their proportion of expenses incurred in carrying on the business, and a reasonable rent for the land. The answer further insists, that the amounts paid out
The defendant, Caroline, is the executrix of the estate of Ransom G., and the administratrix of Richard Hunley, deceased. The assets and funds of the estate of Ransom being in her hands, if that estate was indebted to the estate of Richard, the distributees of the latter estate, might well regard the debt as paid to her, and proceed against her as the administratrix of the intestate, Richard, for the amount due. She is presumed to retain out of the estate of her testator the amount of the debt, and this presumption obtains, whether the demand be liquidated or otherwise. Draughan v. French’s adm’r, 4 Porter, 352; McLane v. Spence, adm’r, &c. 6 Ala. Rep. 894. Although the complainant could have obtained relief for auy portion of the crop due from Ransom to Richard Hunley, without making the defendant a party as executrix of the former, still this does not render the bill multifarious. As the representative of Ransom, who was the only heir of Richard, it was proper that she should be brought before the court, that she might protect the interest of the estate.
The case does not come within the principle ruled in Col-
If, however, the bill was multifarious, the court very properly permitted the complainant to elect, for which cause of complaint she would proceed. Marriat & Hardesty v. Givens, 8 Ala. Rep. 710.
The first witness examined (Woodall) proves that in 1843 Richard G. Hunley told him, he and Ransom worked their hands together, but that all the proceeds were to go to Ransom, as all that he, the said Richard wanted, was enough to live on. That Ransom was his only son, and that after his (Richard’s) death, all his property should go to Ransom. The same conversation is deposed to by the wife of witness., Mrs. Harriet Woodall.
Joshua Carroll was the overseer for Ransom Hunley during the years 1842-3, and in these years, heard Richard H. frequently say the slaves in controversy belonged to the the children of Ransom. That he had given to Richard R. Hunley, the eldest son of Ransom, two slaves in South Carolina by deed, which he had recorded, and that he had given since then two negroes to each of Ransom’s other children. This witness further proves that the complainant below, Lucy Hunley, both before and since the death of her husband, pointed out the slaves in controversy as belonging to Ransom’s children by gift from her husband, naming the slaves
The witness Lavenberg, proves that the children claimed their eight slaves in the presence of Richard and the complainant. That the complainant, in the presence of her husband, named the negroes which she and her husband had •given to Ransom’s children, being the slaves in controversy —two slaves to each of the children.
Wtn. Miller overseed for Ransom in the years ’39 and ’40„ and proves that Ransom controlled the hands and farm, ancl furnished provision for the hands, and incurred the expense ■of carrying on the farming operations; Richard residing on the place owned by Ransom, and having his dwelling house a few hundred yards from him. That the children of Ransom frequently claimed the slaves in controversy in the presence of Richard, between the years ’38 and ’43, and ho •made no objection to their claim.
The witness McDonald, proves that he has seen said slaves about the house of Ransom G. Hunley, and it was generally understood in both families, that they belonged to the children of Ransom, but thinks they were too young to be sepa
J, B. Stephens heard complainant say, a day or two before the death of Ransom G. Hunley, that her late husband, Richard, had given the slaves to the children of Ransom, and that she had nothing to do with them. She did not, however, specify the slaves. That this declaration was made by her upon being informed that she had been sent for by Ransom “ to know something about the little negroes which his father (Richard) had given to his children.”
Mrs. Wilson proves that Richard Hunley pointed out to her eight young negroes, then standing in his yard, saying he had given them to his four grand-children, Mary, Peter, Ann and Ransom, the children of Ransom R. Hunley — two apiece; but the witness does not know the slaves in controversy were those pointed out, except the girl Hester. That Richard Hunley always spoke of these negroes as belonging to said children.
Angus McKaskal overseed for Ransom in !41-2, and proves .that the slaves of Richard and Ransom worked together on the place of the latter, and under his control. That Richard had .some forty or fifty acres of land belonging to himself, .but had nothing to do with the management or superintendence of .the hands and farm. That the provisions for the slaves were furnished by Ransom.
Mrs. Jones was present at Ransom’s house during his last illness, when he sent for the complainant; upon her arrival, she asked the witness why she was sent for, and was told that Ransom desired to know something about the children’s ne* groes — whether she would object to the .children having them. That the complainant, being very much agitated, replied, “ Oh no! I wonder if Ransom does think I would wrong the children.”
The witness McRee, boarded with Ransom from 1836 to the spring of 1840, with a slight intermission, and states that Richard repeatedly told him he had given the eight slaves to
Arabella McDonald, who was examined on the part of the complainant, states, that she was well acquainted with the parties. Has known the slaves in controversy from their birth, and that they were always in the possession of Richard, up to the time of his death, and were afterwards taken out of the possession of Lucy Hunley, by a servant woman, and placed in the possession of plaintiff in error. She further proves, that upon one occasion, when at the house of Ransom Hunley, he and his said father came into the room, the latter having a piece of paper laying upon a book in his hand, remarked to Lucy, his wife, that Ransom wished him to give each of his other children two negroes, to make them equal with his son Richard, to whom he had already given two, and requested her to name the little negroes, so that he might make the selection, and as their names were.called, he wrote them down with a pen or pencil. Immediately thereafter, Ransom and his father both walked out; the witness heard Ransom say, “that would not do;” adding that he wanted him “to fix it,” or “attend to it,” the next time he went to Hayneville, and they went to the house of Richard, where the little negroes were. This witness deposes to after declarations of Richard, showing that he considered the gift as not perfect, for want of delivery, &c.
Mrs. Morrison proves, by the declarations of the plaintiff in error, how he obtained possession of the slaves, by sending her daughter and a negro woman, and bringing them to her residence, and then locking them up. This was in 1846.
The witness, Gingles, deposes to conversations had with
We have thus, after a careful examination, extracted from the mass of depositions taken in the cause, the substance of the proof, and our minds cannot resist the conclusion, that Ransom, being the only son of Richard, took charge of the property of the latter, under an agreement to support him, and to provide for his family. No special agreement to this effect is proved, but the circumstances in evidence, coupled with the repeated declarations of the father, that all he wished, or expected, was a comfortable support, and that he intended his property for his son upon his death; and taken in connection with the further fact, that provisions were furnished the father, and monies paid for him, as is shown by the depositions of some of the witnesses, without any accounting, or charges being made, all very satisfactorily show, that the use of the slaves was considered as an equivalent for the maintenance of Richard and his family. It is very clear, from all the proof, that Ransom was to pay no specified price for the hands, nor was Richard to receive any specific compensation in the division of the crops. Their hands had worked in common for many years, and the comfortable support of the old gentleman and his family was all that he received, and was, according to his oft repeated declarations, all that he desired, or expected. The proof presents the case of an aged parent, who, with property sufficient for his support, yet desirous of freeing his mind from the cares and anxieties of life, sought an asylum in the family of his only son; delivering over his property to his control, trusting it may be to the promise of his son, or to his sense of filial duty and reciprocal obligation to protect the property thus committed to him, and for the comfortable support of himself and family. This idea accords with the proof, and harmonizes with the uniform conduct of the parties, which may be considered a just exponent of the understanding which obtained between them. We are therefore of opinion, that the chancellor erred in decreeing an account to be taken of the crop of 1843,
This arrangement however ceased upon the death of Richard, and if Ransom kept the property, and appropriated it to his own use after that period, he was bound for its reasonable hire, which may be decreed under the prayer for general relief.
In respect to the alledged gift of the eight slaves named in the bill, to the children of Ransom G. Hunley, it is most apparent from the proof, that an essential ingredient is wanting to consummate the gift, namely, the delivery of the property. It is true, Ransom may have had these young negroes, like the older ones, under his control, but this possession was not the possession of his children. There is no evidence that they were ever delivered to him, for any such purpose. Indeed, there is not the slightest evidence of any delivery of these slaves, unless we are to infer such fact from the declarations of the donor, “that he had given the slaves to the children of Ransom.” Such declarations cannot constitute a valid gift, in the absence of proof of actual delivery. Such was the decision of this court in Sewell, by his next friend, v. Glidden, 1 Ala. Rep. 52; and which has been followed by several subsequent decisions. See Sims, &c. v. Sims’s Adm’r, 2 Ala. Rep. 117; Blakey, Adm’r, v. The Heirs of Blakey, 9 Id. 391; Philips v. McGrew, 13 Ib; 255, That Richard Hunley, as well as his wife, the complainant, may at one time have supposed the gift to have been valid, is more than probable from their declarations, but whatever may have been their views respecting its validity, the donor retained the locus penitentiae until it was consummated either by the execution and delivery of a deed of gift, Or the actual delivery of the slaves to the donees, or their guardian. It moreover satisfactorily appears, that the donor, before his decease, was apprised of the incomplete character of the gift, and the slaves are found in his possession at his death. Under all the circumstances of this case, and the proof which this record contains, we feel perfectly certain that no valid gift at common law was made of the slaves, and that the chancellor decided correctly, in decreeing they should be ac
The counsel for the plaintiff in error is mistaken in supposing the doctrine of estoppel can be applied to the declarations of Lucy Hunley, that her late husband had given the slaves, &c. To give such effect to the admission, the party making it must derive some advantage, or gain some object thereby. The opposite party must be induced to act upon it, or receive some injury in consequence of trusting to its truth. Such is not the case before us; it is very certain such declarations could not justify Caroline Hunley in seizing by force upon the slaves and taking them from Lucy Hunley’s possession.
For the error, however, in decreeing an account for the crop of 1843, the decree must be reversed and the cause remanded.