Appeal
from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Colleton County; James J
Izlar, Special Judge.
GARY
A. J.
This
action was brought under section 2368 of the Code of Laws
which is as follows: "If any person who is an inhabitant
of this state, or who has any estate herein, shall have
already begotten, or shall hereafter beget, any bastard
child, or shall live in adultery with a woman, the said
person having a wife or lawful children of his own living
and shall give, or settle, or convey, either in trust or by
direct conveyance, by deed of conveyance, by deed of gift
legacy, devise, or by any other ways or means whatsoever, for
the use and benefit of the said woman with whom he lives in
adultery, or of his bastard child or children, any larger or
greater proportion of the real value of his estate, real or
personal, after payment of his debts, than one-fourth part
thereof, such deed of gift, conveyance, legacy or devise,
made or hereafter to be made, shall be null and void, in
favor of wife and legitimate children, for so much of the
amount or value thereof as shall or may exceed
such fourth part of his real and personal estate." The
complaint alleges that the plaintiffs are the widow and son
of James J. Williams, alias Halford, and that the defendants
J. R. Halford, Harriet Turner, and Laura Abbot, are the
illegitimate children of the said James J. Williams, alias
Halford, begotten of Jane Crosby, after his marriage with
Julia Williams. That Jane Crosby, alias Halford, died in
1894, and James J. Williams in 1896. That in 1871 James J.
Williams conveyed certain real and personal property
described in the fourth paragraph of the complaint to Jane
Crosby, in trust for his children by the said Jane Crosby;
and that the said personal property, with its increase, was
in the possession of Jane Crosby at the time of her death,
but belonged to James J. Williams. That in 188_ James J.
Williams caused the said Jane Crosby to sell certain lands
therein mentioned to S. M. J. Carter; that the funds arising
from such sale were supplemented by the personal funds of
James J. Williams, and were reinvested in the purchase of
certain lands therein described. That in 1892 James J.
Williams, without consideration, conveyed to Jane Crosby all
his real and personal estate of whatever kind soever. That in
1881 Jane Crosby conveyed certain of the property
hereinbefore mentioned to her children by James J. Williams.
That since the decease of James J. Williams the children born
of Jane Crosby as aforesaid, for and in consideration of
$100, conveyed to the defendant J. W. Halford certain of the
property described in the complaint.
The
10th, 11th, 12th, and 13th paragraphs of the complaint are as
follows:
"(10) That all property, both real and personal, in
possession of the said Jane Crosby, alias Jane Halford, at
her decease, of whatsoever kind or description, was conveyed
to her by the said James J. Williams, alias James J. Halford,
and Miner Carter, was, and is, in fact, the personal earnings
and property of him, the said James J. Williams, alias James
J. Halford, and was conveyed to her, the said Jane Crosby,
alias Jane Halford, while they were living together in
adultery, and she to her children, all of which
was illegal, null, and void; which said deeds and conveyances
were made for the express purpose of evading section 1887 of
the Revised Statutes of South Carolina.
(11) That the said James R. Halford, B. F. Halford, J. W.
Halford, Harriet Turner, and Laura Abbott have been receiving
the rents and profits of said estate property, and have
disposed of and wasted the personal property of said estate
of the value of $800, more than one-fourth of the value of
said estate.
(12) That the plaintiff Julia Williams is entitled to one
undivided third part of three-
fourths of said estate, and J. H. Williams to two-thirds of
three-fourths thereof.
(13) That J. E. Halford, B. F. Halford, J. W. Halford, Laura
Abbott, and Harriet Turner were entitled to one-fifth each of
one-fourth of the entire estate."
The
defendants J. R. Halford, B. F. Halford, and Laura Abbott
answered the complaint as follows:
"First, for a first defense: (1) That they deny each and
every allegation in the said complaint contained, and allege
that they and their codefendants, Harriet Turner and J. W.
Halford, are the exclusive owners of all the lands mentioned
and described in the complaint.
Second, for a second defense: (1) That neither the plaintiffs
nor their ancestors, nor predecessors nor grantors, were
seised or possessed of the premises described in the
complaint within 10 years last past before the commencement
of this action. (2) That these defendants' ancestress,
Jane Halford, under whom they claim, entered into possession
of the premises described in the complaint under claim of
title, exclusive of any other right, founding such claim upon
a written instrument as being a conveyance of the premises in
question, and there has been a continued occupation and
possession by the said Jane Halford of the premises included
in this instrument under such claim for more than 10 years
past before the commencement of this action and
before the death of the said Jane Halford." The third
paragraph alleges the erection of certain improvements
therein described.
His
honor the presiding judge submitted the following issues to
the jury, to which the answers are attached, to wit:
"(1) Are the defendants the exclusive owners of all the
lands mentioned in the complaint? Answer. Yes. (2) Did James
J. Williams intermarry with one Julia Albrition, in the state
of Florida, in 1852? Answer. Yes. (3) Is J. H. Williams, the
plaintiff herein, the legal son of said marriage? Answer.
Yes. (4) Are both the said Julia Williams, the wife, and J.
H. Williams, the son, now alive? Answer. Yes. (5) Did the
said James J. Williams afterwards leave the state of Florida,
come to the state of South Carolina, change his name to J. J.
Halford, and while his wife, Julia, was alive, contract a
second marriage with one Jane Crosby, and cohabit with her
until his death? Answer. Yes. (6) Are the defendants the
fruit of the marriage entered into between James J. Halford
and Jane Crosby? Answer. Yes. (7) Did the said James J.
Halford during his lifetime make the conveyances of his
property as mentioned and set forth in the complaint herein?
Answer. Yes. (8) Did the said Jane Halford, on the 6th
January, 1881, in consideration of natural love and
affection, convey the lot or parcel of land described in
paragraph five (5) of the complaint to her children? Answer.
Yes. (9) Was the 200- acre tract mentioned in paragraph 4 of
the complaint, and conveyed with other property by James J.
Halford to Jane Halford in trust for the children of the said
James J. and Jane Halford, sold at the instance of James J.
Halford, and the proceeds reinvested in the purchase of that
certain lot of land in the town of Walterboro? Answer.
No."
In
commenting on these issues, his honor the presiding Judge instructed the jury as follows: "The question
here of legal title is raised by the pleadings, and must go
to the jury, according to the rule established by our courts.
Yet this does not prevent the court from submitting other
issues to the jury for determination along with the question
of title. And, while you may find for the defendants on the
question of legal title, you may find such facts which would
enable the court, when the cause comes up for hearing on the
equity side of the court, to do justice among the parties
and in that court resort to the process of partition, if
necessary to obtain the proper results. The issues which you
must determine upon the pleadings, including legal title to
the premises in question, are stated in the issues which I
have submitted to you. The answer of the jury to these
questions is necessary to determine the rights of the
parties, and to secure to them, respectively, their rights on
the equity side of the court. Now, while under the strict
principles of the law, so far as the legal title is
concerned, you may, if you find the other facts outside of
the legal title to be true, not be able to find the legal
title in the plaintiffs, and be compelled to find for the
defendants, or, in other words, while you may be compelled to
say, in answer to the issue...
