Watford v. Pitt, 7 N.C. 468, 3 Mur. 468 (1819)

May 1819 · Supreme Court of North Carolina

7 N.C. 468, 3 Mur. 468

Hardy Watford v. Janies Pitt.

~) I From Bertie. J

A father being1 indebted, but not beyond his ability to pay, made a parol gift of a slave to his son, then two years old. He then paid his debts, and sold the slave. The purchaser had express notice of the gift, and declared, before he purchased, that he would not on that account give the full value.

The gift, not being in writing, is void as to creditors and purchasers. The case of M’Cree v. Houston, decided at this term, g’overns this case.

This was an action of trover for a negro slave named Stephen. It was proved on the trial that about twenty years before, Stephen was given by parol by John Wat-ford to his son, the Plaintiff, who was an infant aged one or two years. A formal delivery of the slave was made, and persons were called to witness it. At the time of the gift the father was indebted, but not beyond his ability to pay. He remained in Bertie about two years after the gift, and then removed to Edgeconib, taking with him the Plaintiff and the slave. Previous to his removal he paid bis debts, and two years afterwards sold tbe slave to one Isham Holloman, wbo bad express notice of the gift j and, before lie purchased, he declared, in the presence of a witness, that on that account he would not give the full value, Holloman remained in possession of the slave till his death, when the slave came to the possession of the Defendant, who was guardian of Holloman’s children. There was a verdict for the Plaintiff; and a rule for a new trial being obtained by the Defendant, the same was sent to this Court,’ and (

Hall, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the Court:

The case of M’Cree v. Houston, decided at this term, governs this case. Indeed, if there could be a difference between the two cases, it would be against the present Plaintiff| because, after the parol gift to him, the father retained possession of the slave until the sale to Holloman. But in Law there can be no difference. The same reasons that governed the Court in deciding for the Defendant in M’Cree v. Houston, compel them to say that a new trial ought to he granted in this case. The verdict rendered was against Law, as the gift to the child was not by deed, and on that account void against creditors and purchasers under the act of 1784, ch. 10. It is not material that Holloman did not pay the full value of the slave: if he paid nearly the value, it is sufficient. He probably retained as much as would remunerate him for the trouble of defending a suit. Lot the rule for a now trial be made absolute.