Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

18 S.C.L. 199

Joyner v. Cooper

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Decided February 15, 1831

Court of Appeals of South Carolina · decided 1831-02-15

<p>Although the names of the sureties do not appear in any part of the body of the bond, but a blank intended for them is left unfilled ; yet if they signed, sealed, and delivered it as their bond, they are bound, vide Stone v. Wilson, 4 M‘C. 203.</p> <p>A surety may look into the decree of the Court of Equity against his principal, to see if he has been charged solely in his fiduciary character; but he cannot re-examine the merits of the decree in a Court of Law, or call in question the propriety of his principal having been charged in it, in his trust capacity.</p> <p>Where one, indebted by specialty to the estate of a lunatic, is appointed committee of his estate, and the specialty is transferred to, and received by him as committee, the debt is extinguished, and the sureties to his bond as committee, are liable as for so much money received by him.</p> <p>It may now be regarded as a settled point, that where one owes a debt to a trust, and-afterwards assumes the management of that trust, the amount of the debt shall be regarded as so much cash in his hands.</p> <p>Where the appointment of a committee is revoked, and he delivers to his successor a bond due to the lunatic’s estate by the successor, he is discharged by the latter’s acceptance of the bond, from all liability for having originally taken insufficient security for, or granted undue indulgence on the debt.</p> <p>The Commissioner in Equity has no authority, except by special appointment of the Court, to receive the funds of a lunatic’s estate, from a committee, whose appointment has been revoked.</p> <p>Act of 1792, 1 Faust, 213.</p> <p>Vide Acts of 1821, p. 9.</p>

Decided 1831-02-15

O’Neal, J.

¶1delivered the opinion of the Court.

¶2This Court concurs in opinion with the presiding Judge below, on all the questions he has discussed. The second ground, however, presents a question, which although in effect decided, by the judgment below, it may be necessary to decide expressly here. It cannot be denied, that the committee of a lunatic is not subject to any further liability, if on the revocation of his powers he has accounted for, and paid over the funds in his hands, to whomsoever may be legally intitled to receive them. Who in the present case was intitled to receive from the former committee, Thomas Dupont, the funds in his hands 1 Unquestionably the committee John MeNish, who was appointed in his place. The commissioner of the Court of Equity had no right to receive them, unless specially authorized by the Court. McNish’s appointment clothed him with all the power to receive, and manage the estate of the lunatic. If he thought proper to settle with the former committee, without even an account before the commissioner, he could do so ; and his receipt of the funds was an act to which he was fully competent. If he thought proper to receive his own bond, there was nothing in the undertaking or duties of his trust, to prevent his doing so. And the money due on the bond, thereby became part of the trust fund, and his sureties are answerable for it. The motion is therefore refused.

/18/scl/199 · .json · Public domain