Williams v. Halford

• Decision Date: 11 July 1902
• Citation: 42 S.E. 187,64 S.C. 396
• Parties: WILLIAMS et al. v. HALFORD et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

42 S.E. 187

64 S.C. 396

WILLIAMS et al. v. HALFORD et al.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

July 11, 1902

Appeal from common pleas circuit court of Colleton county; Watts Judge.

Action by Julia Williams and J. H. Williams against J. R., B. F., J W., and J. W. Halford, Harriett Turner, Laura Abbott, and John Black. From order granting nonsuit, plaintiffs appeal. Reversed.

Gary A. J., dissenting in part.

Griffin & Padgett, for appellants. Howell & Gruber, for appellees.

POPE J.

It is established by the testimony in this case: That one J. J Williams, in the year 1852, while residing in the state of Florida, was married to one Julia Albritton, a resident of that state, and that the fruits of that marriage were one son, the plaintiff J. H. Williams, and two daughters, both of whom (the daughters) died. That the husband and wife lived together as man and wife until some time in the year 1858 or 1859, when the said husband, J. J. Wiliams, deserted his family in destitute circumstances, and removed to the state of South Carolina, in which latter state he lived for many years, to wit, from 1859 to the year 1896, when he died. That in the year 1860 the said J. J. Williams, having changed his name to J. J. Halford under celebration of marriage, took as his wife one Jane Crosby, with whom he cohabited until her death, in or about the year 1894. Of this cohabitation the said Jane bore the said J. J. Halford, alias Williams, six children, one of whom died, which children bore and still bear his name. That the said James J. Halford, alias Williams, when he removed from the state of Florida to this state, had in his possession some $250 or $300 in gold coin. J. J. Halford, alias J. J. Williams, was a very industrious man, being a blacksmith and wheelwright. That he plied his trade till the date of his death, though in the last few years of his life he was stricken with paralysis. The testimony points out that the treatment of his last alleged wife and her children was all that could be desired. He cared for their education, and when two of the boys, Jas. and B. F., were old enough, he took them into his shop and taught them his trade, as well as afterwards employing them in his establishment. That in the year 1878 or 1879 the son J. H. Williams, from the state of Florida, came to see his father, J. J. Halford, alias J. J. Williams, being received and introduced as his son into his family, where he remained for about one year. That J. J. Williams, alias Halford, never, so far as the testimony discloses, told any one why he deserted his wife in Florida; but the sequel possibly discloses the cause of his leaving her to have been her infidelity to her marital vows, for she bore several children after he left her. He never denied his first marriage and the paternity of J. H. Williams. That in the year 1871 J. J. Williams, alias Halford, for love and affection and $5, conveyed by deed to the second alleged wife, Jane Crosby, under the name of Jane Halford, as his wife, 200 acres of land in Colleton county, also a sorrel mare colt, one buggy, one cart, thirteen head of stock cattle, thirty head of hogs, the tools of his trade, all his household and kitchen furniture, and also her distributive share of the estate of her father, the late Jacob Crosby, for and during her natural life. Then to be given to the children born to him by the said Jane Halford, share and share alike, with the power in said Jane Halford, alias Jane Crosby, to sell or exchange any of said property, and invest the proceeds thereof in other property of any kind, all of which shall be subject to the provisions of this deed. That the testimony shows that the said Jane Halford, alias Jane Crosby, was very poor when the marriage ceremony was performed between herself and J. J. Williams, alias J. J. Halford, and that, apart from the property given to her by her husband, she only received after her marriage $25. That under the contract and control of the said J. J. Williams, alias Halford, in December, 1880, Miner C. Carter, at the price of $700, conveyed 15 acres of land in the town of Walterboro, in Colleton county, S. C., unto the said Jane Halford, alias Crosby, whereon J. J. Halford, alias Williams, dwelt with the said Jane as his wife, and her children, until her death, and whereon were located his shops as blacksmith and wheel-wright; and that the said Jane Halford, alias Crosby, in the year 1881, by deed, conveyed this 15 acres of land to her children, reserving to herself a life estate therein. That one A. S. Barnes, in December, 1882, conveyed to J. J. Halford, alias Williams, at the price of $100, a small tract of land containing 15 acres, in the county of Colleton, S.C. That by deed made 2d May, 1892, J. J. Halford, alias J. J. Williams, conveyed, at the alleged price of $400, to his alleged wife, Jane Halford, alias Jane Crosby, all of his estate, real and personal, now or hereafter possessed. That J. J. Halford, alias J. J. Williams, in the year 1893, in consideration of $100 paid by him, received a quitclaim deed from Mrs. Jane E. Bellinger to the 15 acres in the town of Walterboro already conveyed to Mrs. Jane Halford, alias Jane Crosby. That it was announced by the plaintiffs that by their present suit they only sought the 15 acres in Walterboro and the Barnes tract of 15 acres in the county. An action was brought by the first wife and J. H. Williams, as plaintiffs, in November, 1896, against the five children of Jane Halford, alias Jane Crosby, and one John Black, to receive three-fourths of the 15 acres in Walterboro, and of the Barnes tract of 15 acres in the county, alleging that the defendants, as the illegitimate children of said J. J. Williams, alias Halford, owned the other one-fourth interest in said lands. This action was for partition. Of course, the complaint alleged the foregoing history of the parties, claiming that the first marriage, in 1852, was the only marriage, and that of 1859 or 1860 was merely pretensive. The answer of the defendants denied all the facts set out in the complaint, and then a second defense alleged: "That neither plaintiffs, nor their ancestors nor predecessors nor grantors, were seised or possessed of the premises described in the complaint within ten 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 that there has been a continued occupation and possession by the said Jane Halford of the premises included in such claim for more than ten years last past before the commencement of this action and before the death of the said Jane Halford. (3) That while in actual occupation and possession of the said lands as aforesaid the said Jane Halford, now deceased, during the entire term of her occupancy of more than ten years before her death, improved the said premises and protected much of it by substantial inclosures; and that each of the several lots or tracts described in the complaint were partly improved by the said Jane Halford while she was in actual possession thereof, and as to the portions thereof not cleared and not cultivated the same was so left uncleared and uncultivated according to the usual course and custom of the adjoining country."

The cause came on for trial before Judge Watts and a jury at the November term, 1900, of the court of common pleas for Colleton county, S.C. The pleadings were read, and "the court then stated that the...