McLaurin v. Wilson

Citations

• 16 S.C. 402
• 1882 S.C. LEXIS 11

Syllabus

<p>1. Tbe interest of a liusband, in his wife’s land, was sold under execution in 1840, and purchased by C., and a year afterwards the wife executed a deed to C., in which a valuable consideration was stated and its receipt acknowledged ; but the husband did not join in this deed, and no reference whatever was made to the sheriff’s deed. Upon this latter deed was endorsed a certificate dated eight days afterwards, signed by the wife and a proper officer, but not under his seal; this certificate was in the usual form prescribed for the renunciation by married women of their inheritance, with the omission, however,, of the declaration “ that she did, at least seven days before such examination, actually join her husband in executing such release.” Held, that the interest of the wife in this land was not conveyed to C., for the double reason, that the omitted declaration was essential, and so was the officer’s seal.</p> <p>2. The finding of referees and Circuit judge — that the alleged consideration was not, in fact, paid — sustained; but if paid, it would not estop the married woman, or those claiming under her, from asserting- their title to this land.</p> <p>3. The proviso to Section 415 of the Code of Procedure does not prevent a party to the cause from testifying to a communication between his deceased wife (under whom he claims the land in controversy as heir-at-law) and the ancestor (now deceased) of the defendants to the action.</p> <p>4. A party has the right to require that testimony taken before the clerk under the act of February 15th, 1872, (15 Slat. 41,) shall be read at the trial, notwithstanding the attendance of the witness so examined, and his examination in open court.</p> <p>5. But the court will not grant a new trial for error in excluding such testimony where it related to a matter wholly immaterial.</p>