South Carolina Historical Law Guide

Contents

Legal Ages at a Glance

General Principles

An English legal system

South Carolina’s law came from England. The colony was settled under an English charter in about 1670, and English common law — judge-made law, handed down through court decisions rather than written by a legislature — governed from the start. An act of 1712 made the position formal. This reception act, so called because it received English law into the colony, put in force here the common law and a long list of named English statutes, so far as they suited the colony¹. That single act is the root of most of what follows: the law of wills, of intestate estates, and of who could marry whom all entered South Carolina through it, and much of it was still on the books in the 1940s with the 1712 citation printed underneath.

Husband and wife held property separately under this system. Marriage gave the husband control of the wife’s property, and South Carolina records therefore show individual ownership. Enslaved people stood outside the received law altogether: their status came from the colony’s own slave code, and that separation runs through marriage, property, inheritance, and testimony alike².

Two offices divided the records from an early date. Wills, administrations, and guardianships went to the ordinary — the officer who handled the estates of the dead, a role held by the governor at first, then the secretary of the province, then the courts of ordinary, and from 1868 the probate court. Deeds and dower renunciations went to the register of mesne conveyance (the county land-records officer) or, where a county had none, the clerk of court.

How the law changed over time

The General Assembly replaced received rules with statutes over time, and those dates make useful anchors — each one marks a change you will see in the records:

• 1791 — primogeniture, the rule giving all the land to the eldest son, was abolished, and land and goods were divided together among all the children³.
• 1868 — the new Constitution gave a married woman a separate estate of her own, and an act of 1870 carried it into effect⁴.
• 1872 — couples who had lived as husband and wife before emancipation were declared married, and their children legitimate⁵.
• 1883 — curtesy, a widower’s life interest in his late wife’s land, was abolished⁶.
• 1902 — jury service was tied to the register of voters, for men aged 21 to 65⁷.
• 1911 — marriage licenses were required for the first time, and a statewide marriage record begins⁸.

For any given year, the rule in force is the statute where one had been passed by then, and the common law received in 1712 otherwise.

Legal Age of Adulthood

The age of majority

Full legal age in South Carolina was 21, and it was the same for women and men throughout the period. No single statute declared it; the age came in with the common law in 1712 and shows up section by section as the code fixed 21 for particular acts — making a will of land, qualifying as an executor, serving on a jury⁹. Anyone under 21 was an “infant” in legal language, even a 20-year-old. Majority is what let a person contract on their own account, convey land without a guardian, and take on the settlement of an estate.

What a minor could and could not do

A minor could own property of any kind. What the law limited was the minor’s power to dispose of it. A deed signed by a minor was voidable (valid until the minor chose to undo it): it stood unless the minor, on reaching 21, disaffirmed it — that is, canceled it. Where a young grantor’s deed is followed years later by a second instrument confirming or undoing it, that second document is the disaffirmance, and it dates the grantor’s twenty-first birthday. In practice a minor’s land was managed by a guardian, and only the probate court could authorize a sale¹⁰.

Two acts were open to a minor on the same footing as an adult. A wife could release her dower whether she was of lawful age or a minor¹¹, so never assume a signing wife had reached 21. And a minor of 14 who moved to a new county could choose the guardian who would manage the rest¹⁰.

Marriage

Who was old enough to marry

Capacity to marry rested on the common law throughout: a boy could marry at 14, a girl at 12, and no statute before 1950 displaced those ages¹².

No parental consent was required before 1911. South Carolina had no marriage licensing law at all until that year, so there was no point at which a parent’s approval had to be given or recorded, and a marriage made without it was as good as any other¹². That is worth holding onto when a young bride or groom turns up in the records with no consent paper behind them: none was ever asked for.

The licensing law of 1911 added a second set of figures, aimed at the clerk rather than at the marriage. The probate judge issued a license on payment of a dollar and a sworn statement that the parties were legally able to marry, giving their full names, ages, and places of residence. He could issue none where the woman was under 14 or the man under 18; and where either party was under 18 and lived with a parent, another relative, or a guardian, that person’s written consent had to be handed in first¹³. Both rules date from the licensing act itself, so they applied from the first licenses issued in 1911. The consent filed with an application names a parent or guardian, and is worth asking the probate court for.

Who could marry whom

Everyone could marry except those the law shut out. Persons found to be idiots or lunatics were incapable, and the statute listed the forbidden degrees of kinship by name — a man could not marry his mother, daughter, sister, aunt, niece, stepmother, or the widow or daughter of a close relative, and a woman was barred from the matching list. That list came in with the reception act of 1712 and was still printed in the same words in the 1940s¹⁴. A second marriage while a first spouse lived was void, with one long-standing exception: a person whose husband or wife had been absent for seven years, not known to be living, could marry again¹⁵. That seven-year rule explains a good many second marriages that would otherwise look bigamous.

Licenses and ceremonies

From 30 June 1911 a couple had to obtain a license from the judge of probate before marrying, and the officiant had to receive it before performing the ceremony; both the couple and the officiant risked a fine otherwise⁸. The probate judge recorded the returned certificate in a book kept for the purpose, which is where a post-1911 marriage is found; the printed form called for each party’s age in years and months, race, and nationality, so a license return can date a birth to within a year¹⁶. A ceremony could be performed only by a minister of the Gospel, an accepted Jewish rabbi, or an officer authorized to administer oaths¹⁷.

Marriage without a license

A marriage without a license was still a valid marriage. The 1911 act said so in terms¹⁸, and the point holds on both sides of that year: a couple with no license and no ceremony could be fully and lawfully married, and their children legitimate.

South Carolina recognized common-law marriage — a full, valid marriage formed by agreement alone. A couple were married when three things were true together: both had the capacity to marry; they agreed between themselves, in the present tense, to be husband and wife (an agreement per verba de praesenti, “by words of the present”); and they lived together and were known to their neighbors as married. The Court of Appeals in Equity stated the rule in 1832, holding that it was the agreement itself that made the marriage, and the courts applied it without interruption until 2019¹⁹. Those three things were the whole of what the law asked: capacity, agreement, and a shared life the neighborhood could see.

Proof did not have to be direct. Where two people had lived together as man and wife, that was taken as conclusive of a marriage unless something rebutted it¹⁹, so such a marriage was proved from the ordinary traces of a shared life — a couple named together as husband and wife in a deed, a tax entry, a church roll, a census line, or the recollection of neighbors. This is why a South Carolina couple can be treated as married in an estate or pension file with no ceremony behind them. From 1933 there was also a way to turn that proof into a record. Anyone married before 30 June 1911, or married later without a certificate on file, could establish an official record by filing an affidavit of a witness to the marriage, an affidavit of two reputable persons who knew the couple had lived together as husband and wife, or a certificate from whoever performed the ceremony. The probate judge kept a separate book for these entries, and the record was conclusive evidence of the marriage in every court in the State²⁰. A marriage of the 1870s can therefore appear in a book opened in the 1930s.

Enslaved people and people of color

Enslaved people had no legal capacity to marry, so no civil marriage record exists for them. The slave code treated an enslaved person as property rather than as someone who could enter a contract, and marriage was a contract². The union has to be traced through plantation records, church membership lists, and the estate papers of the enslaver.

Emancipation was followed by two statutes, and the second is the one that lasted. The Black Code of December 1865 recognized the marriages of people of color and the legitimacy of their children, but it was in force only months before Reconstruction swept it aside²¹. The rule that governed afterward, and that was still printed in the code in the 1940s, came from an act of 1872: everyone who before emancipation had agreed to occupy the relation of husband and wife, and was living together as such or still recognizing the relation when the act passed, was declared husband and wife with all the rights and duties of that relation, exactly as if they had been married according to law⁵. When you find a formerly enslaved couple treated as married in an estate file, this is the statute doing the work, and no document was required to trigger it.

Against that ran a hard color line. The Black Code declared marriage between a white person and a person of color void. An act of 1879 replaced it, making unlawful and void the marriage of a white man with a woman of Indian or African descent or of mixed ancestry, and the marriage of a white woman with anyone other than a white man²². The Constitution of 1895 wrote the ban into the state’s fundamental law, reaching any person of African descent and anyone with one-eighth or more African ancestry²³. The statute became unenforceable with Loving v. Virginia in 1967, and the constitutional text was repealed by amendment in 1998²⁴.

Property Ownership

Which men could own land

A free man of full age could buy, hold, and sell land, and his own signature carried the deed. The right rested on being free and of age, and on that alone. Free men of color held land on the same terms and appear in the deed books throughout the period, though the freedoms around that ownership were steadily cut back before the Civil War, as set out below. An enslaved man could own nothing; anything in his hands belonged in law to the enslaver².

A foreign-born man’s position turned on citizenship, and South Carolina settled it generously by statute: aliens could inherit as though they were natural-born citizens, and the foreign-born widow of a citizen took the same interest in his land as if she had been naturalized²⁵.

Single women and widows

A single woman or a widow — a feme sole, “woman alone” — bought, sold, sued, and was sued exactly as a man did. The disability the common law imposed attached to marriage rather than to sex, so nothing in the statutes limited her²⁶. A woman transacting freely in the deed books is almost always unmarried or widowed.

Married women before 1868

Marriage changed a woman’s position entirely, through the doctrine of coverture — the common-law rule that a wife’s legal identity merged into her husband’s. A married woman (a feme covert, “covered woman”) could not contract in her own name; her husband took her personal property and managed her land, and her earnings were his.

Two routes ran around this, and both leave records. Her family could settle property on her in trust for her separate use, in a marriage settlement or a deed of trust executed before or during the marriage; before 1868 a wife could exercise no power over property so settled except the powers the trust instrument itself gave her²⁷. Or she could trade as a feme sole trader — a married woman carrying on her own business. An act of 1712 made such a wife liable to be arrested and sued for debts she contracted as a sole trader, and an act of 1744 gave her the matching power to sue and recover debts contracted with her in that character²⁸. Her husband’s consent was needed and was commonly given by public notice, so that notice marks the point from which she starts to appear in the records under her own name. A married woman signing a deed before 1868 usually means a trust, a settlement, or sole-trader status, and the instrument that created it is worth hunting down.

Married women after 1868

Reconstruction ended coverture over property. The Constitution of 1868 gave a married woman her own estate, and an act of 1870 spelled it out: the real and personal property of a married woman, whether she held it at marriage or acquired it afterward by gift, grant, inheritance, purchase, or devise (a gift of property left by will), was her separate property and could not be seized and sold for her husband’s debts⁴. An act of 1887 added her earnings and income to that separate estate²⁹. The Constitution of 1895 confirmed the arrangement³⁰. After 1868 a married woman on a deed or mortgage in her own name is unremarkable.

When a wife had to sign her husband’s deed

The driver is dower — a widow’s life estate in one-third of the land her husband held during the marriage. Dower gave her the use and income of that third for her life, while ownership itself passed to the heirs. It attached automatically at marriage, so a buyer needed the wife to give it up before the title was clean.

She did that by a renunciation of dower (a formal giving-up of the right). The wife of any grantor conveying land could release and bar her dower — whether she was of lawful age or a minor — by acknowledging, on a private and separate examination away from her husband, that she did so freely and voluntarily, without any compulsion, dread, or fear of any person whatsoever¹¹. The acknowledgment could be taken before a judge, a probate judge, a clerk of court, a master, a magistrate, or a notary, and once recorded it passed her right even though she had signed no deed herself³¹. The renunciation was written up as a separate certificate and recorded with the deed by the register of mesne conveyance or the clerk of court. It names the wife and proves a marriage existed on the date of the deed; where a married man’s deed carries no renunciation, he was probably a widower or unmarried.

One exception is worth knowing. Where a wife had been adjudged insane, her husband could clear the dower by a court proceeding and an endorsement on the deed, certified by the probate judge, which had the same effect as a renunciation³².

Curtesy was the husband’s version of dower. Where a child had been born alive of the marriage, a widower kept the use of his late wife’s land for the rest of his life. An act of 1883 abolished it⁶, so from that year a wife’s death left her husband no life interest in her land. What he took instead was an outright share of her estate under the distribution statute, described under Inheritance below.

Dower itself ran on, and that one-sided arrangement is what finally ended it: the Supreme Court held dower unconstitutional in 1984 as a denial of equal protection³³. Through 1950, a wife’s renunciation is what you should expect to find attached to a married man’s deed.

Land owned by children

A child could own land at any age, taking it by inheritance, gift, or purchase. No statute set a minimum, and the wills chapter took the opposite for granted when it barred an infant from disposing of land he plainly might hold³⁴. Conveying it was the constraint: a minor’s deed was voidable, so the land was sold for him through a guardian, and only the probate court could permit the sale¹⁰. Where a South Carolina deed conveys a child’s land, the guardianship file holds the family.

Witnessing a deed

A witness of any age could serve on a deed, provided the witness understood an oath and could relate what was seen. A deed of land was good if it was executed in the presence of, and subscribed by, two or more credible witnesses³⁵. To be recorded, its execution had first to be proved by the affidavit of a subscribing witness, sworn before an officer competent to administer an oath³⁶. Competency, not age, was the test; deed witnesses were adults in practice, and very often kin or neighbors of the grantor, so the two names at the foot of a deed are worth harvesting.

Free people of color

Free people of color could acquire, hold, and convey land, and did so throughout the period. What the law restricted was everything around that ownership, and the restrictions tightened in a sequence you can date. An act of 1820 ended private manumission, so that after that year freedom could be granted only by the legislature³⁷. An act of 1822 required a free person of color to have a white guardian, taxed them by the head, and restricted their movement into and out of the State³⁸. Their testimony was confined to cases involving other people of color, so a free landowner of color could not defend his title against a white claimant on his own evidence². A capitation tax fell on them by the head from 1756, on women as well as men, and is described under Taxation below. After emancipation the Black Code of 1865 imposed its own conditions on the labor and movement of people of color²¹, and it was the federal Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Constitution of 1868 that put free ownership and full legal capacity on the same footing for everyone³⁹.

Inheritance

When there was no will

When a person died intestate (without a valid will), the estate was divided by rule. In the colonial period the two halves of an estate went different ways. Personal property — money, livestock, furniture, debts owed to the deceased, and before 1865 enslaved people — followed the English Statute of Distributions, received with everything else in 1712: after debts, the widow took one-third and the children shared the rest. Land descended by primogeniture, the eldest son taking all of it, with daughters sharing only where there was no son⁴⁰.

The Act of Distribution of 1791 abolished primogeniture outright and put land and goods on a single footing, to be divided together³. The scheme it set up ran essentially unchanged into the 1950s. Who took what turned on who survived⁴¹:

Three rules run underneath the table. A dead child’s share passed to that child’s own children, who took among them what their parent would have taken — but representation among collateral relatives stopped at the children of brothers and sisters. A child already given land or goods during the parent’s lifetime had that gift counted against the share, so that the estate came out equal in the end; the value was reckoned as at the ancestor’s death⁴². And from the point at which a married woman could own property outright, the statute ran in both directions: on the death of a married woman intestate her husband took the same share of her estate that a widow would have taken of his, and the remainder passed to her descendants and relations in the same order⁴¹. A wife’s estate file is therefore built exactly like a husband’s, and the widower named in it is an heir taking outright, not merely a life tenant.

An intestacy leaves a run of papers with the ordinary, and after 1868 with the probate court: the grant of administration, the inventory and appraisement, and the distribution. The distribution is the one to read, because it names the surviving widow or widower and every child taking a share.

The widow’s choice between dower and a share

A widow could not have both. The statutory provision for the widow of an intestate was made in lieu of dower, and if she accepted it, it barred her dower; if she had forfeited her dower she forfeited her share of her husband’s real estate as well⁴³. So a widow choosing between a life interest in one-third of the land and outright ownership of one-third of the whole estate made a real choice, and the papers that record it — a petition for dower, or a receipt for her distributive share, meaning her portion of the divided estate — tell you which she took.

Guardians for minors

A minor who inherited money or land needed an adult to manage it. Where a minor stood to take from an estate being settled, as an heir or as a legatee (someone left something in a will), the guardian was appointed by the probate court settling that estate. At 14 the minor could choose his own: a minor of 14 or over who moved to another county could ask the probate court there to appoint a guardian of his own choosing, and the former guardian’s powers then ceased. Below 14 the choice belonged to the father, then the mother, then the person the child lived with¹⁰. A guardianship record in which the child does the choosing is therefore evidence the child had reached 14, which brackets a birth year.

The guardian gave bond to the probate judge in double the value of the estate, filed accounts, and made a final settlement when the minor reached 21⁴⁴. That final settlement is one of the most valuable documents in South Carolina genealogy: it dates the minor’s majority, and therefore approximates a birth year, and it frequently reveals a young woman’s married surname. A guardian was appointed chiefly because a child had property to protect, so where a child inherited nothing there is often no guardianship record at all. These papers are not always filed with the estate; the courts of common pleas and equity also handled guardianship business, so a guardianship missing from the probate files is worth pursuing on the equity side.

Children born outside marriage

At common law a child born outside marriage was filius nullius, “nobody’s child,” and could inherit from no one. South Carolina opened up the mother’s side and left the father’s side closed for most of the period. Where a mother died intestate, her illegitimate children were her heirs at law as to her real and personal property; a mother inherited from such a child in turn; illegitimate children of the same mother inherited from each other; and all children of one mother, legitimate or not, inherited from one another⁴⁵. The legislature made those rules reach backward as well, applying them to estates that had not already vested — that is, had not already passed to an identified heir — and been distributed⁴⁶. Inheritance from the father came only in 1951, when the subsequent marriage of the parents was made to legitimate the child as if born in wedlock, with retroactive effect for couples who had already married⁴⁷.

For formerly enslaved families the 1872 act did more than recognize a marriage: it declared the children of those unions legitimate, and where a couple had ceased to live together, all the children of the woman whom the man recognized as his were legitimate too⁴⁸. For a family emerging from slavery this is often the provision on which an inheritance turns, and the estate file that applies it is frequently the earliest document naming both parents and their children together.

Making a will

The age to make a will of land was 21. Any person with a right or title to land could dispose of it by will, except persons of unsound mind and infants, and a will of land made by anyone under 21 had no effect³⁴. That statute reached land alone⁴⁹, so the common-law ages governed a will of personal property: a boy could make one at 14, a girl at 12.

The form was the same for both. Every will of real or personal property had to be in writing, signed by the testator (the person making the will) or by someone else in his presence and at his direction, and attested and subscribed in his presence, and in each other’s presence, by three or more credible witnesses — otherwise it was void⁵⁰. Three witnesses, not two, is the South Carolina number, and it held until the Probate Code of 1986 took effect in 1987. A will written entirely in the testator’s own hand needed the same three witnesses as any other, so expect three names at the foot of the document. An oral will was possible for personal property worth more than fifty dollars only if proved by three witnesses⁵¹.

Executors and witnesses to a will

A witness to a will could be of any age, and a gift to a witness did not spoil the will. The witness stayed competent, and the gift itself stood, except so far as it exceeded what the witness would have received had the will failed; to the extent of that excess the gift was void⁵². So a beneficiary found among the three witnesses usually kept something, and the amount is worth working out.

The age to serve as executor or executrix (the person named in the will to carry it out) was 21: no executor could take on the administration of a will unless he or she was of the full age of twenty-one years⁵³. Where the named executor was a minor, the court granted administration to somebody else. Proved wills were filed with the ordinary and, after 1868, the probate court, together with the letters — the court’s written authority to act — which name the person who actually settled the estate.

Taxation

What was taxed before 1868

The General Assembly passed a tax act nearly every year — a supply act, so called because it supplied the treasury — and its shape held from the colonial period to the Civil War. A single section set every rate at once: so much on land by the acre, or on town lots and buildings by value; so much a head on enslaved people; so much on each wheel of a carriage; and a percentage on money out at interest, on a merchant’s stock in trade, and on the profits of a profession or handicraft trade⁵⁴. Enslaved people were taxed as part of an owner’s assessable property, so they appear in these records as figures in a slaveholder’s return rather than by name.

No age made a person liable for these taxes and no age released him. What a free white man owed followed from what he owned and what he earned, at whatever age he owned or earned it. This is the fact that shapes every antebellum South Carolina tax return: it is a list of property owners and men of business, and a landless white laborer will usually not be in it.

Twice the state reached further. The tax acts for 1786 and 1787 added ten shillings a head on every free white man between 21 and 50, neither lame nor otherwise disabled, who paid no other part of the tax⁵⁴. Those two years are the only ones in the period in which a propertyless white man was named in the state’s tax records.

The head tax on free people of color

One group was taxed by the head throughout. A head tax is a flat charge on a person rather than on property; the acts lay it “per head,” and the later constitutions and record books call the same thing a capitation or a poll tax. From 1756 it fell on free people of color who paid no other part of the state’s taxes, and it ran until 1864. It fell on women as well as men, and the age bracket moved over time⁵⁴:

The books that survive for Charleston are among the very few records that name free people of color directly, and because women were liable a free family of color can often be identified by the taxation of its women⁵⁵.

The poll tax after 1868

After the Civil War the head tax fell on all men, whatever their race, under the name of a poll tax, and it paid for the schools. Women were not liable. The Constitution of 1868 laid an annual tax of one dollar on every taxable poll, applied the money to education, and provided that no one should ever lose the vote for failing to pay it⁵⁶. The Constitution of 1895 kept the dollar and fixed the liable ages, which is where the bracket of 21 to 60 comes from: the tax was assessed on all taxable polls in the State between the ages of twenty-one and sixty, excepting Confederate soldiers above the age of fifty, and the proceeds were spent on schools in the district where the tax was collected⁵⁷.

The 1895 Constitution also made payment a condition of registering to vote, which turned the tax into an instrument of disfranchisement, and non-payment was itself a misdemeanor⁵⁸. The tax was repealed by constitutional amendment in February 1951⁵⁹.

The poll tax generated two annual lists worth knowing about. The county auditor reported to the county superintendent of education, by school district, the names listed for poll tax; and when collection was finished the county treasurer reported the names of the persons in each district who had paid⁶⁰. A poll list names a man because he was a resident adult male, whether or not he owned an acre, so it reaches people who never appear in the land records at all.

Taxes added in the twentieth century

Two later taxes fall inside or just beyond the period, and neither carries an age of liability. South Carolina’s first modern income tax was approved on 13 March 1922 and was replaced by the Income Tax Act of 1926, which is the version printed in the codes of 1932 and 1942⁶¹. A general sales and use tax followed in 1951⁶². The income tax turned on income and the sales tax on the transaction, so neither produces a list of persons by age.

Courts

Jury service

Jury service ran on three successive tests: tax paid, in the colonial period; tax paid together with the right to vote, from 1791; and registration as a voter, from 1902.

Colonial jurors qualified by paying tax, and the amount decided which jury a man sat on. Under the jury act of 1731 a fresh list was made every three years from the previous year’s tax list: 20 shillings or more in tax put a man on the petit jury list, £5 or more on the grand jury list, and only those named could serve⁶³. A grand juror had therefore paid at least £5 the year before. The lists survive for scattered years between 1718 and 1783, arranged by parish, and because the colonial tax lists behind them are lost they now substitute for rolls of the taxpaying men of a parish⁶⁴.

An act of 1791 rebuilt the test for the new state. Every three years the presiding judge copied from the district tax list of the preceding year every person entitled to vote for the legislature, making grand jurors of those who had paid 15 shillings or more and petit jurors of those who had paid 5 shillings or more⁶⁵. An antebellum juror was therefore a taxpaying white man who could vote.

An act of 1871 moved the work to a board of jury commissioners — the county auditor, county treasurer, and clerk of court — which still prepared the list in the 1940s⁶⁷. From 1902 the board drew it each December from the enrollment books of qualified electors, taking the male electors between 21 and 65 who were of good moral character and free from legal exception⁷. Land ownership formed no part of that test, but registration was gated by the poll tax and the literacy provisions of the 1895 Constitution, and that is how poor men, and after 1895 Black men in particular, were kept off juries⁵⁸.

Jury service was closed to women, who were named in the statute among the persons exempt from serving⁶⁶; as late as 1961 South Carolina was one of only three states that still barred them⁶⁸. The General Assembly admitted them in 1967⁶⁹.

Criminal responsibility

The common law fixed the ages, and they governed for most of the period. A child under 7 could not be convicted at all; between 7 and 14 the law presumed the child incapable, though the State could rebut that by showing the child understood the act was wrong; from 14 a person bore full responsibility and was tried in the court of general sessions like any adult. No South Carolina statute displaced these ages before 1936⁷⁰.

An act of 1936 opened a second route, in one corner of the State, establishing a children’s court in every county containing a city of more than 70,000 people⁷¹. It had exclusive jurisdiction over children under 16 alleged to be delinquent or neglected, a delinquent child being one over 7 and under 16⁷², and an adjudication there was not a conviction⁷³. Because the threshold was measured against the federal census, Charleston was the only city above the line at the 1940 count, at 71,275⁷⁴. So a child of 14 or 15 in Charleston County from 1940 leaves a children’s court file, closed and separately kept, while the same child anywhere else in the State was prosecuted in general sessions. Richland County came within the act only after the 1950 census, and a statewide family court came with the Code of 1976.

Witnesses

A witness of any age could testify, if he or she understood the obligation of an oath and could relate what happened; the trial judge examined a child personally before allowing the testimony. No statute set a minimum age, and the code chapter on witnesses fixes none⁷⁵. A young child’s uncorroborated word carried little weight, but that went to weight rather than competency. In the children’s court a child was allowed to testify without being sworn at all⁷⁶.

Women were competent witnesses throughout the period. Under coverture a wife could not be a witness for or against her husband in most matters, since the two were treated as one person and each had an interest in the other’s cause; the disability went with coverture rather than with sex, and it fell away as the married women’s property acts dismantled the doctrine after 1868⁷⁷. A wife’s testimony in a nineteenth-century South Carolina case file is therefore worth a second look, because something in the pleadings will explain why it was allowed.

Race was a bar of a different kind. Under the slave act of 1740 and the law built on it, enslaved people and free people of color could not give sworn testimony against a white person; their evidence was received only in matters affecting other people of color². The Black Code of 1865 kept the same shape, allowing people of color to testify in cases affecting persons of color²¹, and full competence came with the federal Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Constitution of 1868³⁹. The practical consequence for research is that an antebellum case file involving a white party contains no Black voices at all; where testimony from an enslaved or free person of color survives, it is from a case between people of color, or reported at second hand in an equity suit.

Sources and Where to Verify

Constitutions

• South Carolina Constitution of 1868. Art. IX, § 2, and art. X, § 5 (poll tax for schools, with no loss of suffrage for non-payment); art. XIV, § 8 (married woman’s separate estate). Text and history in South Carolina Encyclopedia, “Constitutions.” https://www.scencyclopedia.org/sce/entries/constitutions/ (accessed 11 August 2026).
• South Carolina Constitution of 1895. Art. II, §§ 4, 12 (poll tax paid before registration and before municipal elections); art. III, § 33 (marriage of a white person with a person of African descent unlawful and void, repealed 1998); art. XI, § 6 (annual one-dollar poll tax on polls aged 21 to 60); art. XVII, § 9 (married woman’s separate property). Printed with annotations in the Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942, vol. 1, and current text at South Carolina Legislature. https://www.scstatehouse.gov/scconstitution/SCConstitution.pdf (accessed 11 August 2026).

Codes and Compilations

• South Carolina. Commission on the Revision and Consolidation of the Statute Laws of the State. General Statutes and the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of South Carolina. Columbia, S.C.: James Woodrow, state printer, 1882. The compilation cited in the notes below as the General Statutes. Digital images. Internet Archive. https://archive.org/details/generalstatutesc00sout (accessed 11 August 2026).
• The Revised Statutes of South Carolina. Revision begun by John J. Maher, completed by John E. Breazeale. Columbia, S.C.: Charles A. Calvo, 1894. 2 vols. Vol. 1, the civil statutes; vol. 2, the code of civil procedure and the criminal statutes, both approved by the General Assembly of 1893. Cited in the notes as the Revised Statutes. Digital images. Internet Archive. Vol. 1, https://archive.org/details/revisedstatuteso01revi; vol. 2, https://archive.org/details/revisedstatuteso02revi (accessed 11 August 2026).
• Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1902. Columbia, S.C.: The State Company, State Printers, 1902. Vol. 1, the Civil Code; vol. 2, the Criminal Code. Digital images. Internet Archive. Vol. 1, https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout01will; vol. 2, https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout02will (accessed 11 August 2026).
• Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1912. Charlottesville, Va.: The Michie Company, Law Publishers, 1912. 2 vols. The Civil Code as it stood immediately after the marriage-licensing act, with each section’s source printed beneath it — the volume to use for the law as the 1911 act left it. Digital images. Internet Archive. Vol. 1, https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout01andr; vol. 2, https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout02andr (accessed 11 August 2026).
• Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1922. Columbia, S.C.: The R. L. Bryan Co. and The State Co., 1922. Vol. 1 holds the codes of civil and criminal procedure and vol. 3 the Civil Code, so vol. 3 is the volume the notes below cite. Digital images. Internet Archive. Vol. 1, https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout01smwo; vol. 2, https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout02smwo; vol. 3, https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout03smwo (accessed 11 August 2026).
• Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1932. Charlottesville, Va.: The Michie Company, 1932. 3 vols. Cited throughout the notes below in the citation chains printed under each section of the 1942 code, which uses the same section numbers. The base volumes are not yet digitized on Internet Archive; the annotated supplements for 1934 and 1936 are. Digital images. Internet Archive. 1934 supplement, https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout1934sout; 1936 supplement, https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout1936sout (accessed 11 August 2026).
• Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942. Clinton, S.C.: Jacobs Press, 1942. 5 vols. The code in force in the last decades covered here, each section printed with its full chain back through the codes of 1932, 1922, 1912, and 1902, the General Statutes, the Revised Statutes, and the session laws. Vol. 1 holds the Code of Civil Procedure, the state constitution, the courts and juries, the domestic relations courts, and part of the Criminal Code; vol. 2 holds elections, revenue, and the register of mesne conveyances; vol. 3 holds schools and local taxation; vol. 4 holds the Civil Code — husband and wife, dower, guardians, descent and distribution, wills, and administration. Page numbers in the notes below are the printed page numbers of these volumes. Digital images. Internet Archive. Vol. 1, https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout01unse; vol. 2, https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout02unse; vol. 3, https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout03unse; vol. 4, https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout04unse; vol. 5, https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout05sout. The 1946 cumulative supplement is at https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout1946sout (accessed 11 August 2026).
• Code of Laws of South Carolina (current). Each section printed with its full citation chain back to the nineteenth century, which is the fastest way to trace a rule backward. South Carolina Legislature. https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t20c001.php (marriage); https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t14c007.php (juries); https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t62c002.php (wills) (accessed 11 August 2026).

Statutes at Large and Session Laws

• Cooper, Thomas, and David J. McCord, eds. The Statutes at Large of South Carolina. Columbia, S.C.: A.S. Johnston, 1836–1841; continuation, vols. 11–13, Columbia, S.C.: Republican Printing Co., 1873–1875. The essential source for the colonial and antebellum acts. Cooper edited volumes 1 through 5 and McCord volumes 6 through 10. Digital images. Internet Archive. Vol. 2 (the reception act, the marriage and bigamy provisions, the wills provisions, and the feme-sole-trader act of 1712 at p. 588), https://archive.org/details/statutesatlargeo02edit; vol. 3 (the jury act of 1731 at p. 274 and the feme-sole-trader act of 1744 at p. 616), https://archive.org/details/statutesatlargeo03edit; vol. 4 (the colonial tax acts carrying the capitation on free people of color, and the supply act of 1786 at p. 728), https://archive.org/details/statutesatlargeo04edit; vol. 5 (the Act of Distribution of 1791 at p. 162), https://archive.org/details/statutesatlargeo05edit; vol. 7 (the slave act of 1740 at p. 397, the acts of 1820 and 1822 on free people of color at pp. 459 and 461, and the jury act of 1791 at p. 271), https://archive.org/details/statutesatlargeo07edit; vol. 13 (the Black Code of 1865 at p. 269), https://archive.org/details/statutesatlargeo13repu (accessed 11 August 2026).
• South Carolina session laws. Acts cited in the notes by session, volume, and page, in the form the codes use: 1870 (14) 325 (married women’s property); 1871 (14) 690 (jury commissioners); 1872 (15) 183 (marriages and children of formerly enslaved couples); 1879 (17) 3 (intermarriage); 1883 (18) 339 (curtesy abolished); 1887 (19) 819 (married women’s earnings); 1902 (23) 1066 (jury list from the register of voters); 1911 (27) 131 (marriage licenses); 1922, 32 Statutes at Large 896 (income tax); 1933 (38) 260 (establishing pre-1911 marriages); 1936 (39) 1499 (domestic relations courts); 1951 (47) 265 (legitimation by subsequent marriage); 1951 Act No. 379 (sales and use tax); 1967 (55) 895 (women on juries). Each is to be read in the session volume for its year.

Court Cases

• Boan v. Watson. 281 S.C. 516, 316 S.E.2d 401 (1984). https://law.justia.com/cases/south-carolina/supreme-court/1984/22112-1.html (accessed 11 August 2026).
• Fryer v. Fryer. 9 S.C. Eq. (Rich. Cas.) 85 (1832). https://www.courtlistener.com/c/S.C.%20Eq./9/ (accessed 11 August 2026).
• Hoyt v. Florida. 368 U.S. 57 (1961). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/368/57/ (accessed 11 August 2026).
• Loving v. Virginia. 388 U.S. 1 (1967). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/388/1/ (accessed 11 August 2026).
• Major v. Hunt. 64 S.C. 97, 41 S.E. 816 (1902). Printed in the annotation to the Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942, vol. 4, § 8915.
• Reid v. Lamar. 20 S.C. Eq. 27 (1845). https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7467758/reid-v-lamar/ (accessed 11 August 2026).
• State ex rel. Roddey v. Byrnes. 219 S.C. 485, 66 S.E.2d 33 (1951).
• Stone v. Thompson. 428 S.C. 79, 833 S.E.2d 266 (2019). https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/sc-supreme-court/2010867.html (accessed 11 August 2026).
• Tedder v. Tedder. 108 S.C. 271, 94 S.E. 19 (1917).

Secondary and Reference Works

• Brimelow, Judith, and Michael E. Stevens. State Free Negro Capitation Tax Books, Charleston, South Carolina, ca. 1811–1860: An Introduction to Accompany South Carolina Archives Microcopy No. 11. Columbia: South Carolina Department of Archives and History, 1983. The record guide to the capitation books themselves.
• Charleston County Public Library. “South Carolina’s Capitation Tax on Free People of Color, 1756–1864,” “The Rise of Voter Suppression in South Carolina, 1865–1896,” and “The Decline of Voter Suppression in South Carolina, 1900–1965.” https://www.ccpl.org/charleston-time-machine/south-carolinas-capitation-tax-free-people-color-1756-1864; https://www.ccpl.org/charleston-time-machine/rise-voter-suppression-south-carolina-1865-1896; https://www.ccpl.org/charleston-time-machine/decline-voting-suppression-south-carolina-1900-1965 (accessed 11 August 2026).
• FamilySearch Research Wiki. “South Carolina Probate Records,” “South Carolina Court Records,” and “South Carolina Law and Legislation.” https://www.familysearch.org/en/wiki/South_Carolina_Probate_Records; https://www.familysearch.org/en/wiki/South_Carolina_Court_Records; https://www.familysearch.org/en/wiki/South_Carolina_Law_and_Legislation (accessed 11 August 2026).
• Medlin, S. Alan. “Selective Substantive Provisions of the South Carolina Probate Code: A Comparison with Previous South Carolina Law.” South Carolina Law Review 38 (1987). The fullest account of the will, executor, and guardianship rules before 1987. https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/sclr/vol38/iss4/2 (accessed 11 August 2026).
• O’Neall, John Belton. The Negro Law of South Carolina. Columbia, S.C.: John G. Bowman, 1848. The antebellum digest of the law governing enslaved people and free people of color, including their capacity to hold property and their competency as witnesses.
• South Carolina Department of Archives and History. Genealogy Resources (marriage licenses from 1911; probate, land, and equity records as the core relationship sources), and the “Renunciations of Dower” series description. https://scdah.sc.gov/research-and-genealogy/resources/genealogy-resources; https://www.archivesindex.sc.gov/SeriesDescriptions/l10044.html (accessed 11 August 2026). The archives index site is periodically offline for maintenance; if the series description does not load, the same series is listed in the department’s guide to digitized indexes at https://scdah.sc.gov/sites/scdah/files/Documents/Research%20and%20Genealogy/Online%20Research/Digital%20Collections/digitalindexes.pdf.
• South Carolina Department of Revenue. South Carolina Sales and Use Tax Manual. Ch. 1, which dates the first sales and use tax to 1951. https://dor.sc.gov/sites/dor/files/Documents/Policy%20Manuals/SC%20Sales%20Tax%20Manual.pdf (accessed 11 August 2026).
• South Carolina Encyclopedia. “Constitutions,” “Feme sole traders,” and “Segregation.” https://www.scencyclopedia.org/sce/entries/constitutions/; https://www.scencyclopedia.org/sce/entries/feme-sole-traders/; https://www.scencyclopedia.org/sce/entries/segregation/ (accessed 11 August 2026).
• U.S. Bureau of the Census. Census of Population: 1950. Vol. 1, Number of Inhabitants. Ch. 40, South Carolina. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1952. Tables 4 and 7 carry the 1940 and 1950 counts for Charleston and Columbia. https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1950/population-volume-1/vol-01-43.pdf (accessed 11 August 2026).
• U.S. Women’s Bureau. The Legal Status of Women in the United States of America: Report for South Carolina as of January 1, 1938. By Sara L. Buchanan, assisted by Mary Loretta Sullivan. Bulletin 157-39. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1940. Majority, married women’s property, dower, wills, intestacy, guardianship, marriage, and jury service, with citations to the then-current code. A revised report as of 1 January 1948 followed in 1949. Catalog records, Monthly Catalog of United States Government Publications, University of North Texas. 1940 report, https://mocat.library.unt.edu/catalog/542-ch1538; 1949 report, https://mocat.library.unt.edu/catalog/662-6275 (accessed 11 August 2026).
• Warren, Mary Bondurant, comp. South Carolina Jury Lists, 1718 through 1783. Danielsville, Ga.: Heritage Papers, 1977. Describes the surviving lists, their arrangement by parish, and the tax qualification behind them. Extracts and a list of the surviving years are posted at SCRoots, https://sites.rootsweb.com/~scroots/m_1725.html (accessed 11 August 2026).

Citations

1. "An Act to put in force in this Province the several statutes of the Kingdom of England or South Britain therein particularly mentioned," 1712; Thomas Cooper and David J. McCord, eds., The Statutes at Large of South Carolina (Columbia, S.C.: A.S. Johnston, 1836–1841), vol. 2. Digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/statutesatlargeo02edit : accessed 11 August 2026). The act’s reach is visible in the citation chains printed under the sections that descend from it — 1712 (2) 203 (bigamy), 1712 (2) 476 (prohibited degrees), 1712 (2) 526 and 551 (wills) — in the Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942 (Clinton, S.C.: Jacobs Press, 1942), vol. 4; digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout04unse : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩
2. The Negro Act of 1740, Act No. 670; David J. McCord, ed., The Statutes at Large of South Carolina (Columbia, S.C.: A.S. Johnston, 1840), 7:397–417; digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/statutesatlargeo07edit : accessed 11 August 2026). The act treats an enslaved person as chattel, incapable of holding property or of contracting, and confines the evidence of enslaved and free people of color to matters affecting other people of color. The rules are collected and explained in John Belton O’Neall, The Negro Law of South Carolina (Columbia, S.C.: John G. Bowman, 1848) ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
3. Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942 (Clinton, S.C.: Jacobs Press, 1942), vol. 4, § 8905, "Right of primogeniture abolished," p. 1198; carried from the Act of Distribution, 1791 (5) 162, through the General Statutes, § 1844, the Revised Statutes, § 1979, and the codes of 1902 (§ 2467), 1912 (§ 3554), 1922 (§ 5326), and 1932. Digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout04unse : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩ ↩
4. S.C. Const. of 1868, art. XIV, § 8, implemented by the act of 1870 (14) 325; now Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942 (Clinton, S.C.: Jacobs Press, 1942), vol. 4, § 8572, "Married women may hold property separate from their husbands," p. 1036, and § 8574, "Right of married women to convey, bequeath and devise property — descent," p. 1038, the latter also providing that a married woman dying intestate leaves property descending "in the same manner as the law provides for the descent of the property of husbands." Digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout04unse : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩ ↩
5. Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942 (Clinton, S.C.: Jacobs Press, 1942), vol. 4, § 8569, "Rights and privileges conferred on certain marriages," p. 1034; carried from 1872 (15) 183 through the General Statutes, § 2030, the Revised Statutes, § 2161, and the codes of 1902 (§ 2662), 1912 (§ 3755), 1922 (§ 5534), and 1932; now S.C. Code § 20-1-30, which fixes the operative date at 12 March 1872. Digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout04unse : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩ ↩
6. Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942 (Clinton, S.C.: Jacobs Press, 1942), vol. 4, § 8577, "Tenancy by courtesy abolished," p. 1042; the code’s spelling of curtesy; carried from 1883 (18) 339 through the Revised Statutes, § 2169, and the codes of 1902 (§ 2670), 1912 (§ 3763), 1922 (§ 5542), and 1932. Before that act a widower held curtesy at common law, received under the act of 1712, and the chapter carries no other provision on the subject. Digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout04unse : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩ ↩
7. Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942 (Clinton, S.C.: Jacobs Press, 1942), vol. 1, § 608, "Preparation of jury list — place electors on — when prepared," p. 461; carried from 1902 (23) 1066, with amendments at 1915 (29) 76, 1933 (38) 446, 1939 (41) 27, 332, 543, and 1941 (42) 70, through the codes of civil procedure of 1912 (§ 4017) and 1922 (§ 548) and the code of 1932; now S.C. Code § 14-7-140. Digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout01unse : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩ ↩
8. Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942 (Clinton, S.C.: Jacobs Press, 1942), vol. 4, § 8557, "License required for matrimony," p. 1030; from 1911 (27) 131, carried through the codes of 1912 (§ 3744), 1922 (§ 5523), and 1932. The effective date of 30 June 1911 is the date the code itself uses to divide licensed from unlicensed marriages, at § 8571-1. Digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout04unse : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩ ↩
9. Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942 (Clinton, S.C.: Jacobs Press, 1942), vol. 4, §§ 8915 (wills of land, p. 1208) and 8966 (executors and administrators, p. 1230), and vol. 1, § 608 (jurors, p. 461), each fixing twenty-one. The age itself came in with the common law under the reception act of 1712, and the code carries no single section declaring it. Digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout04unse : accessed 11 August 2026) and (https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout01unse : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩
10. Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942 (Clinton, S.C.: Jacobs Press, 1942), vol. 1, § 222, "When minor may choose guardian — guardian interested — where appointed," p. 98, carried from 1870 (14) § 50 through the codes of civil procedure of 1902 (§ 50), 1912 (§ 56), and 1922 (§ 180), and the code of 1932; and § 223, "Authorized to permit sale and settle accounts of guardian," p. 98, giving the probate court sole authority to permit a sale of the minor’s estate. Digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout01unse : accessed 11 August 2026). The parallel provision, naming the father, then the mother, then the person the child lives with, is at Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942 (Clinton, S.C.: Jacobs Press, 1942), vol. 4, § 8619, "Change of guardianship when ward or minor moves from county and transfer of personal estate," p. 1060; digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout04unse : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩ ↩ ↩ ↩
11. Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942 (Clinton, S.C.: Jacobs Press, 1942), vol. 4, § 8579, "How dower renounced and barred," p. 1044; carried from 1876 (16) 92, with amendments at 1890 (20) 710, 1909 (26) 42, and 1918 (30) 807, through the General Statutes, § 1797, the Revised Statutes, § 1900, and the codes of 1902 (§ 2384), 1912 (§ 3470), 1922 (§ 5234), and 1932. Digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout04unse : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩ ↩
12. The common-law marriageable ages, fourteen for a male and twelve for a female, entered South Carolina with the reception act of 1712. The marriage chapter of the Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942 (Clinton, S.C.: Jacobs Press, 1942), vol. 4, §§ 8556–8571, pp. 1029–35, fixes no age for the marriage itself and requires no parental consent for it; the only consent requirement anywhere in the chapter is the licensing proviso of § 8558, which dates from 1911. The first statutory minimum age for marriage, sixteen for both sexes, came with 1997 Act No. 95, § 1, now S.C. Code § 20-1-100. Digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout04unse : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩ ↩
13. Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942 (Clinton, S.C.: Jacobs Press, 1942), vol. 4, § 8558, "Probate judge issue license — fee — qualifications — issuance by clerk of court," pp. 1030–31, whose closing provisos carry the age floor and the consent requirement: no license was to issue "when the woman or child-woman is under the age of fourteen, or when the man or male is under the age of eighteen," and where either party was under eighteen and lived with a parent, other relative, or guardian, the written consent of that person had to be delivered first. From 1911 (27) 131, carried through the codes of 1912 (§ 3745), 1922 (§ 5524), and 1932, and amended many times between 1912 and 1939 in ways that affect only the fee splits and the counties in which the clerk of court rather than the probate judge issued licenses. The provisos are traceable to the act as first passed: they appear in the same words in the Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1912 (Charlottesville, Va.: The Michie Company, Law Publishers, 1912), Civil Code, § 3745, which cites only "1911, XXVII. 131" beneath the section. Digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout04unse : accessed 11 August 2026) and (https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout01andr : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩
14. Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942 (Clinton, S.C.: Jacobs Press, 1942), vol. 4, § 8556, "Who may contract matrimony," p. 1029; carried from 32 Hen. 8, c. 38, and 1712 (2) 476, through the General Statutes, § 2026, the Revised Statutes, § 2157, and the codes of 1902 (§ 2658), 1912 (§ 3742), 1922 (§ 5522), and 1932. Digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout04unse : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩
15. Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942 (Clinton, S.C.: Jacobs Press, 1942), vol. 4, § 8568, "Bigamous marriages void," p. 1033; carried from 1 Jas. 1, c. 11, and 1712 (2) 203, through the General Statutes, § 2029, the Revised Statutes, § 2160, and the codes of 1902 (§ 2661), 1912 (§ 3754), 1922 (§ 5533), and 1932. The seven-year period was shortened to five by later amendment. Digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout04unse : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩
16. Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942 (Clinton, S.C.: Jacobs Press, 1942), vol. 4, § 8559, "Form of license — certificate," p. 1031; which prints the form in full; from 1911 (27) 131, and in the same terms at the Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1912, Civil Code, § 3746. Digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout04unse : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩
17. Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942 (Clinton, S.C.: Jacobs Press, 1942), vol. 4, § 8565, "Who may perform marriage ceremony," p. 1032; from 1911 (27) 131. Digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout04unse : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩
18. Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942 (Clinton, S.C.: Jacobs Press, 1942), vol. 4, § 8563, "Marriage without license," p. 1032; from 1911 (27) 131 — "Nothing herein contained shall render any marriage illegal without the issuance of a license". Digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout04unse : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩
19. Fryer v. Fryer, 9 S.C. Eq. (Rich. Cas.) 85, 92 (1832), reaffirmed in Tedder v. Tedder, 108 S.C. 271, 94 S.E. 19 (1917); digital images, CourtListener (https://www.courtlistener.com/c/S.C.%20Eq./9/ : accessed 11 August 2026). The doctrine was abolished prospectively from 24 July 2019 by Stone v. Thompson, 428 S.C. 79, 833 S.E.2d 266 (2019), which recounts its South Carolina history; digital images, FindLaw (https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/sc-supreme-court/2010867.html : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩ ↩
20. Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942 (Clinton, S.C.: Jacobs Press, 1942), vol. 4, § 8571-1, "Establish marriages prior to June 31, 1911," p. 1035; the code’s own heading; the modern successor gives the date as 30 June 1911. From 1933 (38) 260, amended 1945 (44) 164; now S.C. Code §§ 20-1-570, 20-1-580. Digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout04unse : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩
21. "An Act to Establish and Regulate the Domestic Relations of Persons of Color, and to Amend the Law in Relation to Paupers and Vagrancy," Act No. 4733 (December 1865); The Statutes at Large of South Carolina (Columbia, S.C.: Republican Printing Co., 1875), 13:269–85; digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/statutesatlargeo13repu : accessed 11 August 2026). The act was superseded within months and none of its provisions carries forward in the codes; the surviving rules on marriage and legitimacy are those of 1872 ↩ ↩ ↩
22. Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942 (Clinton, S.C.: Jacobs Press, 1942), vol. 4, § 8571, "Intermarriage of races prohibited," p. 1035; from 1879 (17) 3, carried through the General Statutes, § 2032, the Revised Statutes, § 2163, and the codes of 1902 (§ 2664), 1912 (§ 3757), 1922 (§ 5536), and 1932. The statute uses the racial vocabulary of its own day, which is paraphrased in the text above. Digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout04unse : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩
23. S.C. Const. of 1895, art. III, § 33, as printed with annotations in the Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942 (Clinton, S.C.: Jacobs Press, 1942), vol. 1; digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout01unse : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩
24. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); Justia (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/388/1/ : accessed 11 August 2026). Article III, § 33 of the Constitution of 1895 was removed by a constitutional amendment approved by the voters in November 1998 and no longer appears in the constitution as printed by the state: South Carolina Legislature (https://www.scstatehouse.gov/scconstitution/SCConstitution.pdf : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩
25. Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942 (Clinton, S.C.: Jacobs Press, 1942), vol. 4, § 8907, "Aliens may inherit as natural born citizens," and § 8908, "Aliens’ widows," both p. 1202, the latter from 1872 (15) 73. Digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout04unse : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩
26. Coverture was a disability of marriage, not of sex: it entered South Carolina with the common law under the reception act of 1712 and attached only on marriage, so an unmarried woman or a widow was never subject to it. The point is visible in the arrangement of the code, whose husband-and-wife chapter, Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942 (Clinton, S.C.: Jacobs Press, 1942), vol. 4, §§ 8572–8577, pp. 1036–42, legislates for married women alone and says nothing of single women. Digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout04unse : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩
27. Reid v. Lamar, 20 S.C. Eq. 27 (1845), opinion by Harper, Ch., holding it settled law that a married woman had no power to charge, encumber, or dispose of property settled to her separate use beyond the powers the instrument itself gave her; digital images, CourtListener (https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7467758/reid-v-lamar/ : accessed 11 August 2026). See also the other cases collected in the annotation to the Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942 (Clinton, S.C.: Jacobs Press, 1942), vol. 4, § 8572 ↩
28. "An Act for the better securing the payment of debts due from any person inhabiting and residing beyond the sea or elsewhere without the limits of this Province of South Carolina, and to subject a Feme Covert that is a Sole Trader to be arrested and sued for any debt contracted by her as a Sole Trader," 1712, Act No. 324; The Statutes at Large of South Carolina, 2:588; digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/statutesatlargeo02edit : accessed 11 August 2026). The power to sue was added by "An Act for the better securing the payment and more easy recovery of debts . . . and to impower and enable a feme covert that is a sole-trader, to sue for and recover such debts as shall be contracted with her as a sole-trader," 1744, Act No. 709; The Statutes at Large of South Carolina, 3:616; digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/statutesatlargeo03edit : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩
29. Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942 (Clinton, S.C.: Jacobs Press, 1942), vol. 4, § 8573, "Earnings of married women," p. 1037; from 1887 (19) 819. Digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout04unse : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩
30. S.C. Const. of 1895, art. XVII, § 9 ↩
31. Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942 (Clinton, S.C.: Jacobs Press, 1942), vol. 4, § 8578, "Renunciation of dower — acknowledgment and certificate," p. 1043; listing the officers competent to take the acknowledgment. Digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout04unse : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩
32. Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942 (Clinton, S.C.: Jacobs Press, 1942), vol. 4, §§ 8599–8601, pp. 1051–52, from 1884 (19) 169. Digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout04unse : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩
33. Boan v. Watson, 281 S.C. 516, 316 S.E.2d 401 (1984); digital images, Justia (https://law.justia.com/cases/south-carolina/supreme-court/1984/22112-1.html : accessed 11 August 2026). The opinion describes dower as a life estate in a fraction of the lands the husband was seized of — that is, held — at any time during the marriage, and lists the dower statutes then in force ↩
34. Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942 (Clinton, S.C.: Jacobs Press, 1942), vol. 4, § 8915, "Right and capacity to devise rights or title to real property," p. 1208; carried from 34 and 35 Hen. 8, c. 5, 1712 (2) 551, 1733 (3) 342, and 1789 (6) 106, through the General Statutes, § 1853, the Revised Statutes, § 1987, and the codes of 1902 (§ 2475), 1912 (§ 3563), 1922 (§ 5335), and 1932. By excepting infants from the power to dispose of land, the section takes for granted that an infant may hold it. Digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout04unse : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩ ↩
35. Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942 (Clinton, S.C.: Jacobs Press, 1942), vol. 4, § 8634, "Form of conveyance of real property — witnesses — sealed instruments," p. 1084. Digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout04unse : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩
36. Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942 (Clinton, S.C.: Jacobs Press, 1942), vol. 2, § 3632, "Prerequisites for recording deeds, etc.," p. 910. Digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout02unse : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩
37. "An Act to restrain the emancipation of slaves, and to prevent free persons of colour from entering into this State; and for other purposes," 1820, Act No. 2236; The Statutes at Large of South Carolina, 7:459–60; digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/statutesatlargeo07edit : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩
38. "An Act for the better regulation and government of free negroes and persons of colour; and for other purposes," 1822, Act No. 2277; The Statutes at Large of South Carolina, 7:461–62; digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/statutesatlargeo07edit : accessed 11 August 2026). The act is summarized, with the later amendments, in John Belton O’Neall, The Negro Law of South Carolina (Columbia, S.C.: John G. Bowman, 1848) ↩
39. Civil Rights Act of 1866, ch. 31, 14 Stat. 27 (9 April 1866), § 1, giving citizens of every race and color the same right to make contracts, to sue, to be parties and give evidence, and to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property; and S.C. Const. of 1868, art. I, as printed in the Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942 (Clinton, S.C.: Jacobs Press, 1942), vol. 1; digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout01unse : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩ ↩
40. The English Statute of Distributions, 22 and 23 Car. II, c. 10, was among the statutes put in force by the reception act of 1712, and primogeniture governed land at common law until 1791. Both points are recorded in the act that ended the arrangement, the Act of Distribution of 1791, cited by the codes as 1791 (5) 162; The Statutes at Large of South Carolina, 5:162; digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/statutesatlargeo05edit : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩
41. Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942 (Clinton, S.C.: Jacobs Press, 1942), vol. 4, § 8906, "Distribution of property," subsecs. 1–10, pp. 1199–1200. Subsec. 6 gives the widow two-thirds where only next of kin survive; subsec. 7 provides that where there is no widow her provision goes as the rest of the estate; subsec. 8 gives a surviving husband the same share of his wife’s estate that a widow takes of her husband’s, with the remainder going to her descendants and relations in the same order; subsec. 9 makes the matching provision where there is no husband; and subsec. 10 gives the whole estate to the surviving spouse where no kindred at all survive. Carried from 1797 (5) 49 and 1826 (6) 284, with amendment at 1920 (31) 873, through the General Statutes, § 1845, the Revised Statutes, § 1980, and the codes of 1902 (§ 2468), 1912 (§ 3555), 1922 (§ 5327), and 1932. Digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout04unse : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩ ↩
42. Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942 (Clinton, S.C.: Jacobs Press, 1942), vol. 4, § 8909, "Property to be equally divided — portions advanced by intestate to be deducted," p. 1202. Digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout04unse : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩
43. Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942 (Clinton, S.C.: Jacobs Press, 1942), vol. 4, § 8912, "Provision for widows of intestates to be in lieu of dower," p. 1205; carried from 1791 (5) 163, amended 1880 (17) 525, through the General Statutes, § 1852, and the Revised Statutes, § 1986. Digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout04unse : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩
44. Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942 (Clinton, S.C.: Jacobs Press, 1942), vol. 4, § 8612, "Bond of guardians — extent of penalty — relief of sureties," p. 1058; from 1839 (11) 68, amended 1932 (37) 1155. Digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout04unse : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩
45. Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942 (Clinton, S.C.: Jacobs Press, 1942), vol. 4, § 8913, "Inheritance by or from illegitimates," p. 1205; carried from 1906 (25) 156, 1920 (31) 1039, 1927 (35) 242, and 1934 (38) 1419, through the codes of 1912 (§ 3562), 1922 (§ 5334), and 1932. Digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout04unse : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩
46. Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942 (Clinton, S.C.: Jacobs Press, 1942), vol. 4, § 8914, "Inheritance by or from illegitimates — application of § 8913," p. 1207; from 1928 (35) 1187. Digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout04unse : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩
47. 1951 (47) 265, now S.C. Code §§ 20-1-60, 20-1-70 (accessed 11 August 2026), retroactive where the parents had married and the father and child were living on 2 May 1951 ↩
48. Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942 (Clinton, S.C.: Jacobs Press, 1942), vol. 4, § 8570, "Certain children legitimatized," p. 1034; from 1872 (15) 183. Digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout04unse : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩
49. Major v. Hunt, 64 S.C. 97, 41 S.E. 816 (1902), in the annotation to the Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942 (Clinton, S.C.: Jacobs Press, 1942), vol. 4, § 8915, holding that the section has no application to personal property. No section of the wills chapter, §§ 8915–8941, pp. 1208–24, fixes an age for a will of goods, so the ages of fourteen and twelve are those of the common law received in 1712. Digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout04unse : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩
50. Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942 (Clinton, S.C.: Jacobs Press, 1942), vol. 4, § 8916, "Devises shall be in writing, attested by three or more witnesses," p. 1208; carried from the Statute of Frauds, 29 Chas. 2, c. 3, and 1712 (2) 526, 1789 (5) 106, and 1824 (6) 238, through the General Statutes, § 1854, and the Revised Statutes, § 1988. The number was reduced to two by the South Carolina Probate Code, 1986 Act No. 539, effective 1 July 1987, now S.C. Code § 62-2-502. Digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout04unse : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩
51. Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942 (Clinton, S.C.: Jacobs Press, 1942), vol. 4, § 8937, "Nuncupative wills exceeding fifty dollars to be proved by three witnesses," p. 1221; carried from 29 Chas. 2, c. 3, and 1712 (2) 528 and 1789 (5) 107. Digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout04unse : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩
52. Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942 (Clinton, S.C.: Jacobs Press, 1942), vol. 4, § 8919, "Subscribing witnesses not to be incompetent because of interest — limitation," p. 1211. Digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout04unse : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩
53. Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942 (Clinton, S.C.: Jacobs Press, 1942), vol. 4, § 8966, "Persons under twenty-one years not to be executors or administrators," p. 1230; from 1824 (6) 237, carried through the General Statutes, § 1889, the Revised Statutes, § 2021, and the codes of 1902 (§ 2510), 1912 (§ 3603), 1922 (§ 5380), and 1932. Digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout04unse : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩
54. The rates all sit in one section of the annual supply act. For the shape of the tax, see "An Act for raising Supplies for the year one thousand seven hundred and ninety-four," The Statutes at Large of South Carolina, 5:250; digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/statutesatlargeo05edit : accessed 11 August 2026). For the head tax on free white men, "An Act for raising Supplies for the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty-six," Act No. 1312, The Statutes at Large of South Carolina, 4:728, laying ten shillings per head "on all free white men, neither lame or otherwise disabled, from twenty-one to fifty years of age, who pay no other part of the taxes imposed by this Act"; digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/statutesatlargeo04edit : accessed 11 August 2026). The same clause was repeated in the supply act for 1787 and dropped thereafter, the later acts keeping the head tax on free people of color alone. For the earliest bracket on free people of color, the tax act of 1758, Act No. 874, laying thirty-six shillings per head on free people of color "from ten to sixty years of age, who pay no other part of the taxes imposed by this Act," The Statutes at Large of South Carolina, vol. 4; the same clause recurs at thirty-five shillings in the tax act of 1760, Act No. 898, and the bracket of sixteen to fifty appears in the same section of the 1786 supply act cited above. For the span from 1756 to 1864 and the later brackets, Charleston County Public Library, "South Carolina’s Capitation Tax on Free People of Color, 1756–1864" (https://www.ccpl.org/charleston-time-machine/south-carolinas-capitation-tax-free-people-color-1756-1864 : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩ ↩ ↩
55. Judith Brimelow and Michael E. Stevens, State Free Negro Capitation Tax Books, Charleston, South Carolina, ca. 1811–1860: An Introduction to Accompany South Carolina Archives Microcopy No. 11 (Columbia: South Carolina Department of Archives and History, 1983) ↩
56. S.C. Const. of 1868, art. IX, § 2, and art. X, § 5 ↩
57. S.C. Const. of 1895, art. XI, § 6, as printed in the Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942 (Clinton, S.C.: Jacobs Press, 1942), vol. 1; and see Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942 (Clinton, S.C.: Jacobs Press, 1942), vol. 3, § 5365, "Poll tax — collection — use," p. 443, applying the tax to schools in the district where it was collected. Digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout03unse : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩
58. Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942 (Clinton, S.C.: Jacobs Press, 1942), vol. 2, § 2267, "Qualifications for registration after January 1, 1898," p. 120, requiring payment of any poll tax due six months before an election; digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout02unse : accessed 11 August 2026). See also S.C. Const. of 1895, art. II, § 12, for municipal elections, and Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942 (Clinton, S.C.: Jacobs Press, 1942), vol. 1, § 1720, "Nonpayment of poll tax," p. 958, making non-payment a misdemeanor, carried from 1892 (21) 43 with amendments at 1899 (23) 120, 1901 (23) 780, and 1908 (25) 1245; digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout01unse : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩ ↩
59. Charleston County Public Library, "The Decline of Voter Suppression in South Carolina, 1900–1965," which dates the ratification of the repealing amendment to February 1951 (https://www.ccpl.org/charleston-time-machine/decline-voting-suppression-south-carolina-1900-1965 : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩
60. Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942 (Clinton, S.C.: Jacobs Press, 1942), vol. 3, § 5364, "County auditor report poll tax lists and taxable property for special school levy," and § 5366, "County treasurer report persons paid poll tax," both p. 443, from 1896 (22) 165. Digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout03unse : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩
61. Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942 (Clinton, S.C.: Jacobs Press, 1942), vol. 2, § 2435, "Short title," p. 225, and § 2437, "Imposition of the income tax on individuals," p. 226. The editor’s note printed under § 2435 records that "the first Income Tax Law of our State was approved March 13th, 1922," at 32 Statutes at Large 896, and that it was replaced by the Income Tax Act of 1926, 1927 (35) 1. Digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout02unse : accessed 11 August 2026). An earlier and unrelated South Carolina income tax ran from 1897 to 1918 ↩
62. 1951 Act No. 379, upheld in State ex rel. Roddey v. Byrnes, 219 S.C. 485, 66 S.E.2d 33 (1951). South Carolina Department of Revenue, South Carolina Sales and Use Tax Manual, ch. 1 (https://dor.sc.gov/sites/dor/files/Documents/Policy%20Manuals/SC%20Sales%20Tax%20Manual.pdf : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩
63. "An Act confirming and establishing the ancient and approved method of drawing juries by ballot, in this Province," ratified 20 August 1731, Act No. 530; The Statutes at Large of South Carolina, 3:274–80, the schedules at §§ I–III (3:274–75) and the triennial list and tax thresholds at § XXII (3:279–80); digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/statutesatlargeo03edit : accessed 11 August 2026). Fresh lists were enacted by later acts of the same kind, among them Act No. 636 and Act No. 783 ↩
64. Mary Bondurant Warren, comp., South Carolina Jury Lists, 1718 through 1783 (Danielsville, Ga.: Heritage Papers, 1977), which lists the surviving years and describes their arrangement by parish and the tax qualification behind them. Extracts and a list of the surviving years are posted at SCRoots (https://sites.rootsweb.com/~scroots/m_1725.html : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩
65. "An Act to alter and amend the Law respecting Juries; and to make some additional regulations to the Acts for establishing and regulating the Circuit Courts," 1791, Act No. 1526; David J. McCord, ed., The Statutes at Large of South Carolina (Columbia, S.C.: A.S. Johnston, 1840), 7:271–75, the jury-list clause at § V (7:273–74); digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/statutesatlargeo07edit : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩
66. Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942 (Clinton, S.C.: Jacobs Press, 1942), vol. 1, § 629, "Persons exempt from serving as jurors," p. 476; whose citation chain runs back through the General Statutes, § 2240, and the Revised Statutes, § 2380, to the acts of 1832 (8) 380 and 1836 (8) 447, then 1871 (14) 690 and a long line of later amendments ending at 1941 (42) 96. Women are named in the section among the persons exempt. Digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout01unse : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩
67. Act of 1871, 14 Statutes at Large 690, which placed the preparation of the jury list in the hands of the county auditor, county treasurer, and clerk of court. The chain is printed under Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942 (Clinton, S.C.: Jacobs Press, 1942), vol. 1, § 607, "Clerk of court of common pleas summon jurors," p. 461 — General Statutes, § 2254; Revised Statutes, § 2373; 1871 (14) 690; 1874 (15) 638; 1893 (21) 524; 1896 (22) 16; 1902 (23) 1066 — and again in the modern successor, S.C. Code § 14-7-110. Digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout01unse : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩
68. Hoyt v. Florida, 368 U.S. 57, 62 n.5 (1961), citing S.C. Code, 1952, § 38-52; Justia (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/368/57/ : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩
69. 1967 (55) 895, now S.C. Code § 14-7-20, "Words ‘male’ and ‘men’ to include ‘female’ and ‘women’" (accessed 11 August 2026) ↩
70. The ages of seven and fourteen are those of the common law, received under the reception act of 1712; no South Carolina statute displaced them before 1936. The criminal code as it stood in 1942 fixes no minimum age of responsibility anywhere, and the only age of any kind in it is the sixteen-year jurisdictional line of the children’s court, Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942 (Clinton, S.C.: Jacobs Press, 1942), vol. 1, § 256-2, "Definitions," p. 124, which by defining a delinquent child as one over seven and under sixteen preserves the common-law floor of seven. Digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout01unse : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩
71. Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942 (Clinton, S.C.: Jacobs Press, 1942), vol. 1, §§ 256-3 and 256-4, pp. 125, establishing the domestic relations court and its two divisions; from 1936 (39) 1499, amended 1938 (40) 1539 and 1941 (42) 52. Digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout01unse : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩
72. Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942 (Clinton, S.C.: Jacobs Press, 1942), vol. 1, § 256-2, subsecs. 7–9, p. 124 (definitions of child, adult, and delinquent child), § 256-26, p. 132 (jurisdiction), and § 256-30, subsec. 2, p. 134 (duty of a magistrate to transfer); from 1936 (39) 1499. Digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout01unse : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩
73. Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942 (Clinton, S.C.: Jacobs Press, 1942), vol. 1, § 256-36, "Effect of judgment, confession, etc.," p. 137. Digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout01unse : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩
74. Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942 (Clinton, S.C.: Jacobs Press, 1942), vol. 1, § 256-1, p. 123, applying the article to counties containing a city of over 70,000 "according to the official United States census"; digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout01unse : accessed 11 August 2026). For the counts, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population: 1950, vol. 1, Number of Inhabitants, ch. 40, South Carolina, table 7 (Charleston city, 71,275 in 1940 and 70,174 in 1950) and table 4 (Columbia city, 86,914 in 1950 and 62,396 in 1940); digital images, U.S. Census Bureau (https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1950/population-volume-1/vol-01-43.pdf : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩
75. No South Carolina statute set a minimum age for a witness. The chapter on witnesses in the Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942 (Clinton, S.C.: Jacobs Press, 1942), vol. 1, §§ 683–710, pp. 513–35, deals with subpoenas, fees, and the competency of interested parties and fixes no age; the general competency rule is at § 692, "Parties to actions and special proceedings competent witnesses except in certain cases," p. 515, carried from 1870 (14) § 415. Competency was therefore a matter for the trial judge under the common law received in 1712. Digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout01unse : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩
76. Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942 (Clinton, S.C.: Jacobs Press, 1942), vol. 1, § 256-32, "Children testify without being under oath," p. 135. Digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout01unse : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩
77. The common-law rule that husband and wife could not testify for or against each other rested on the unity of person created by coverture, and fell away with it. The statutory competency rules that replaced it are at Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942 (Clinton, S.C.: Jacobs Press, 1942), vol. 1, § 692, p. 515, from 1870 (14) § 415, and the married women’s property provisions that dismantled coverture are at Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1942 (Clinton, S.C.: Jacobs Press, 1942), vol. 4, §§ 8572–8575, pp. 1036–38, from 1870 (14) 325 and 1887 (19) 819. Digital images, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout01unse : accessed 11 August 2026) and (https://archive.org/details/codeoflawsofsout04unse : accessed 11 August 2026) ↩