Mims v. Jones

Supreme Court of South Carolina March 28, 1917

Mims v. Jones, 107 S.C. 81 (S.C. 1917)

91 S.E. 987

Gary

Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Chief Justice Gary.

For the reasons therein stated, the judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Footnote.—As to proof of slave marriages and legitimacy of their children under the South Carolina statutes, see Davenport v. Caldwell, 10 S. C. 317; Callahan v. Callahan, 36 S. C. 454, 15 S. E. 454; Taggart v. Taggart, 89 S. C. 490, 71 S. E. 1081; Watson v. Ellerbe, 77 S. C. 232, 57 S. E. 855; Robertson v. McCauley, 61 S. C. 416, 39 S. E. 570; State v. Whaley, 10 S. C. 500; Clement v. Riley, 33 S. C. 66, 11 S. E. 699; Knox v. Moore, 41 S. C. 355, 19 S. E. 683; Childs v. Childs, 93 S. C. 427, 77 S. E. 50; Cave v. Cave, 101 S. C. 40, 85 S. E. 244.

Reference

Full Case Name: MIMS v. JONES
Status: Published
Syllabus: 1. Slaves — Children op Slaves — Legitimacy—Statutes—Construction. —Under the Enabling Act of December 21, 1865 (13 St. at Large, p. 291), as to legitimacy of children born to slave parents who sustained marriage relations, where the evidence showed that the deceased ex-slave at the time of the passing of such act lived in the marriage relation with plaintiff, and that three children were born to them, ■ the wife and children took an interest in the' estate of' such ex-slave; and were entitled to partition. 2. Slaves — Children op Slaves — Legitimacy—Statutes—Construction. —Such interest vested on the passage of the act. 3. Slaves — Marriages—Validity.—Where, on passage of Enabling Act •' (13 St. at Large, p. 291), a slave was living in the marriage relation with a slave woman, he could not thereafter contract a valid marriage with another woman while the first wife lived. 4. Pleading — Amendment—Trial Amendment — Discretion op Court. —A motion to amend is always in the sound discretion of the Court. 5. Pleading — Amendment op Answer — To Conform to Proop. — Where the only testimony of the transaction relied on by defendant was her own, which was objected to as incompetent, and which was at least unsatisfactory, leave first asked on hearing of the master’s report to amend the answer to conform thereto was properly refused.