Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

18 S.C. Eq. 26

Cooper v. Day

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Decided December 15, 1844

Court of Appeals of South Carolina · decided 1844-12-15

Before Johnston, Ch. at Edgefield, June, 1843. The Chancellor. The defence adopted in this case renders it necessary to go back to the case of Hancock vs. Day,* and I do not knowUhat I can explain the circumstances better than by repeating in the first instance a greater part of the statement of that case, contained in my decree of 1839. The original bill in that case was filed the 20th of February, 1838, by Nancy, Simon, and William J. Hancock, infants suing by Benjamin R..

Decided 1844-12-15

Curia, per JohbtstoN, Ch.

¶1This court is satisfied with the circuit decree, and the grounds upon which it was put by the Chancellor. It is conceded here that the defendant has purchased whatever rights Mrs. Gurganus may have had in the negroes Will and Ned, under the trust deed, and this renders it proper to explain that no such operation is to be given to the decree as to deprive the defendant of their possession, (in case Mrs. Gurganus shall be declared to have retained an interest in them,) until William J. Hancock shall attain 18 years of age, which will be in March, 1845. At that time he shall deliver them up.

¶2No explanation is necessary in relation to the hire of the ne-groes. The decree directs no account on the subject, but simply indicates that the defendant may be accountable, as the court shall direct, in accordance with the trusts which it may declare.

¶3With these explanations, it is unanimously ordered that the decree be affirmed.

/18/sceq/26 · .json · Public domain