Hill v. Brennan

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Hill v. Brennan

24 S.C.L. 285

DecidedMay 15, 1839

StatusPublished

This text of 24 S.C.L. 285 (Hill v. Brennan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hill v. Brennan, 24 S.C.L. 285 (S.C. Ct. App. 1839).

Pincite

Opinion

Cuma, per Evans; J.

By hiring the negroes from Mrs. Hill, the defendant acknowledged her title, and could dispute it only by showing that she had parted from her title, to him, or some other person. Upon his refusal to deliver, she had a right to sue him, [287]*287and this cause of action descended to her administrator, the plaintiff. The circumstance that she afterwards took out letters of administration on John Hill’s estate, and inventoried these negroes as a part of his estate, could not vary the case. She was still the owner of the negroes in law, and according to the case of Kerby v. Quinn, decided during the present term, (ante. p. 264,) could maintain an action for the defendant’s conversion in her own name.

M’Call & Hammond, for the motion. Clark & M’Dowell, contra.

The motion is therefore dismissed.

O’Neall, Earle and Butler, Justices, concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cuma, per Evans; J.

By hiring the negroes from Mrs. Hill, the defendant acknowledged her title, and could dispute it only by showing that she had parted from her title, to him, or some other person. Upon his refusal to deliver, she had a right to sue him, [287]*287and this cause of action descended to her administrator, the plaintiff. The circumstance that she afterwards took out letters of administration on John Hill’s estate, and inventoried these negroes as a part of his estate, could not vary the case. She was still the owner of the negroes in law, and according to the case of Kerby v. Quinn, decided during the present term, (ante. p. 264,) could maintain an action for the defendant’s conversion in her own name.

M’Call & Hammond, for the motion. Clark & M’Dowell, contra.

The motion is therefore dismissed.

O’Neall, Earle and Butler, Justices, concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 S.C.L. 285, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-brennan-scctapp-1839.