Sutton v. Hollowell

• Decision Date: 30 June 1829
• Parties: BENJAMIN SUTTON, Executor of William R. Sutton, v. HENRY HOLLOWELL.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

13 N.C. 185

BENJAMIN SUTTON, Executor of William R. Sutton,

v.HENRY HOLLOWELL.

SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

JUNE TERM, 1829

FROM PERQUIMANS.

A slave was given by deed to A, "saving and reserving the use of said slave during my (the donor's) natural life, and the natural life of my (the donor's) beloved wife." Held, that the limitation over after the life estate was too remote, and therefore void at common law.

DETINUE for several slaves, the issue of the negro woman Celia, mentioned in the bill of sale hereinafter mentioned.

On the trial a special verdict was found, setting forth the following facts, viz., that Thomas Baker, being the owner of the slave, Celia, on 2 October, 1802, executed the following bill of sale:

"Know all men by these presents, that I, T. B., in consideration of the affection I have for my daughter, Elizabeth Baker, together with the sum of five shillings, etc., have and do give and sell my said daughter Elizabeth one negro girl slave named Celia (saving and reserving the use of said slave during my natural life and the natural life of my beloved wife). To have and to hold said negro girl slave to my said daughter Elizabeth, her heirs and assigns forever. In witness, etc."

Elizabeth Baker, the donee, afterwards married the plaintiff's testator, William R. Sutton. After the death of Thomas Baker, his wife put the slave into the possession of the plaintiff's testator, saying that she would belong to him at her death; but she did not relinquish any right to the slave which she had for her life, and the plaintiff's testator held the slave only under the authority of the wife of Baker. Sutton, the

husband of Elizabeth, the donee, died, leaving his wife and the wife of the donor surviving him. After his death the widow intermarried with the defendant.

Upon these facts his Honor, Judge STRANGE, thinking thatthe case came within the principle of Vass v. Hicks, 7 N. C., 493, and not within that of Graham v. Graham, 9 N. C., 322, rendered judgment for the plaintiff, from which the defendant appealed.

The case was submitted without argument.

HALL, J. The cases on this subject are not altogether reconcilable. Parol gifts by delivery, reserving life estates, are contradictory and inconsistent, in the nature of things. Property cannot be delivered, and retained at the same time. If there is a delivery there can be no reservation of a life estate. Of this kind were Duncan v. Self, 5 N. C., 466, and Vass v. Hicks, 7 N. C., 498.

At common law there could not be a limitation of personal chattels after a life estate created by deed. It was also...