3 S.C. Eq.

Volume 3 — South Carolina Equity Reports

71 opinions

3 S.C. Eq. 1Jacks v. Tunno (1809)
case i. Voluntary gift of property by parents to children not void, as to creditors, unless fraudulent.
3 S.C. Eq. 6Charleston Insurance Co. v. Potter (1809)
OASE II. The Court of Equity does not interfere in Insurance cases, unless in some extraordinary cases.
3 S.C. Eq. 11Gibson v. Broadfoot (1809)
case hi. So much of the award as exceeded the submission., set aside.
3 S.C. Eq. 12Executors of Chouler v. Assignees of Smith (1809)
[Tried, before Chancellor Gaillard, and decree pronounced by him, on the
3 S.C. Eq. 18Huger v. Huger (1809)
uase v. The Court will authoriuze a change of the property of minors, when it is for their benefit.
3 S.C. Eq. 22Stapleton v. Langstaff (1809)
case vx. The Court will authorise sales of Estates in which minors have an interest when for their benefit.
3 S.C. Eq. 25Mathews v. Dragaud (1809)
[Tried before Chancellor Desaussure, Circuit Court of Equity, Charleston,
3 S.C. Eq. 29Surviving Executors of Elliott v. Drayton (1809)
[Tried before Chancellor Desaussure, Circuit Court of Equity, Charleston,
3 S.C. Eq. 31Pogson v. Owen (1809)
[Tried before Chancellor Desaussure, Circuit Court of Equity, Charleston, From this decree an appeal was made on the following grounds : 1st. Because one of several persons jointly interested cannot maintain a suit against a joint agent, and the refusal of his companions will not authorize such suit, not being tantamount to a severance of their joint interests. * 2d. Because complainants have another more suitable remedy hy bill against their copareners for severance and…
3 S.C. Eq. 39Broadfoot v. Gibson (1809)
[Tried, before Chancellor Besaussure, Circuit Court of Equity, Charleston,
3 S.C. Eq. 43Menude v. Delaire (1809)
[Tried before Chancellor Desaussure, Circuit Court of Equity, Charles'' ton Decree,
3 S.C. Eq. 47Warren v. Wigfall (1809)
ed from con-toother ieg° acies. ^niy the Id degree, and bate with pe-cun'My lega-cics * according to the court of Ap*
3 S.C. Eq. 57Lee v. Waring (1809)
[Tried before Chancellor Desaussure, Circuit Court of Equity, Charleston, Every bond given voluntarily is good and binding, unless malum in se, or against some principle of policy. There was a privity in this case between the person giving, and the person taking the bond. The governor is the representative of the state, and is bound to take care of its interests; and he requires bonds to secure the funds of the state.
3 S.C. Eq. 74Delaire v. Keenan (1809)
[Tried lrt'ore Chancellor Desaussure, Circuit Court of Equity, Charleston,
3 S.C. Eq. 78Assignees of Ramsay v. Ellis (1810)
[Tried before Chancellor Rutledge, Circuit Court of Equity, Charleston,
3 S.C. Eq. 80Whaley v. Jenkins (1810)
[Tried before Chancellor Rutledge, Circuit Court of Equity, Charleston, Mr. Braytok, counsel for the appellant, and Mr. Curves, counsel for the respondent, were heard on t]ij^ appeal. Words standing alone, 4-Mod. 19, Carter vs. Horner ; 6 ibid, 106 ; 6, Bridge-.. water vs. Bolton ; Holt 281 $ 2 P. Wms. 522 ; 1 term '' rep. 411 ; 1 Yes. 10, 228. The general rule is that the word estate includes not only the lands, but also the estate or interest therein: 3 Aik. 48G ; 1Í.
3 S.C. Eq. 84Executors of Desell v. Casey (1810)
case xvi. The Court corrects ■ ecution ; effect’ to^the intent of par-
3 S.C. Eq. 87Trezevant v. Howard (1810)
casesyu. The Court ^al^es" ^teescj1’*'{e^ sold to pay j“t personal estate °*0 ovev to aliens.
3 S.C. Eq. 88Boone v. Fraser (1810)
[Tried before Chancellor Gaillard, Circuit Court of Equity, Charleston, and decree pronounced
3 S.C. Eq. 89Higginson v. Executors & of Fabre (1810)
cj.se hi. An agent selling a nouse for less than price an(?cr¿ ditmg the full by^ though the pnce tinned was the full value. Comm;ss-lcms not originally be charged, “d afterwards be c,aüy as {¡1(3 aSent y legacy tor his services. complainant ticf^'c^ount* and falsifying geV^in it, the °!]!C1' , pen it, to set ciSwge^f'in-terest. Executors fr-Jíing^broad! not bound to give security to pay a legd-contmgent-^ wberetbercis misconduct,
3 S.C. Eq. 94Thompson v. Wagner (1810)
•case xr. iiechee. Sake^execiv tor of an ulld XHv master in We^or^neg'-lect of duty, deciieb. The master in chancery liable fornegiect cutoi-Talsoliable- Decree as to the executor ’'©versed Decree reversed as to Mr. Gibbes.
3 S.C. Eq. 105Halyburton v. Kershaw (1810)
case XXI A erson intestate -, his tiveifíre1lii-a 'ens -, a more ón who1'is a titíed%<f thé land; and he have^tiie^bei nefitof a con. theGl Testator ahouseoivthe land : líad ¡rescinded and cancelled Decree.
3 S.C. Eq. 116Executors of Mason v. Executors of Man (1810)
[Tried before Chancellor Besaussure, Circuit Court of Equity, Charleston, THE bill charges that the late Kinder Mason appointed the late Spencer Man Ms attorney in fact to recover an(t remit considerable sums of money, due to him by R. & P. Smith on bonds, on which judgments were obtained. That Spencer Man received considerable sums of money, which he remitted, but there remained in his hands a large balance unaccounted for.
3 S.C. Eq. 124Andersons v. Moncrieff (1810)
[Tried before Chancellor Desaussure, Charleston, THE complainants, who arc London Merchants, charge that on the 6th of October, 1799, they consign-edby the schooner Phoebe,, captain Walsh, forty-five Negroes from the Island of Bance, on the coast of Africa, to William M’Leod, to sell the said negroes at the Havanna to the best advantage, and remit the nett proceeds to- the said Andersoüs, at that time in London.
3 S.C. Eq. 135Administrators of Byrne v. Administrators of Stewart (1810)
case XXIX. The husband isnMentitled wife’s death to the propei-could not be reduced to possession port,onunder i79l!atUte ° eeche?.
3 S.C. Eq. 149Holmes v. Simons (1810)
[Tried before Chancellor Desaussure, Charleston, THE bill in this case is filed to have an account of certain estates, real and personal, and the delivery thereof, to the complainant, on the ground that the deed under which the defendant holds was erroneously drawn, and ought, according to the intentions of the donor, to have contained a clause which would (upon certain events that have occurred) have carried the estates in question to the complainant.
3 S.C. Eq. 155Ex parte Wells ex rel. Lynah (1810)
Writ of partition for two thirds of the personal estate of her deceased father, Matthew Wells, including four. negroes, with the issue of the females, said to have been conveyed by the said Matthew Wells to his wife, by a deed of gift, which is contested.
3 S.C. Eq. 165Jones v. Price (1811)
fTried before Chancellor Desaussure, Circuit Court of Equity, Charleston,
3 S.C. Eq. 168Clark v. Mikell (1810)
[Tried before Chancellor Besaussure, Charleston, THE only question made in this case for the consideration of the Court, is, whether, under the will of the late Mr. William Joseph Mikell, of Edisto Island, his son, John Mikell, is entitled to a fee simple in a tract of land devised to him, or whether he takes a mere life cs-fate, and that the fee descends among all the heirs of the testator, under the act of the legislature of February, 1791, abolishing the rights of…
3 S.C. Eq. 175Coit v. Owen (1810)
¡Tried before Chancellor Gaillard, Charleston, THE assignees of John Hawkins, of London, a bank-rapt, had a demand on account against the estate of Philip Hawkins, which Mr. Owen, the executor, A ed to be just.
3 S.C. Eq. 178Butler v. Ryan (1810)
[Tried before Chancellor Dssaussure, Circuit Court of Equity, Cliarleg--ton, THIS case came on upon motion to set aside certain executh»i5, which have been lodged in the sheriff’s office by the Register of this Court, to enforce the collec-^on certain fees of office claimed by him from Pierce ®u^er-: a^so> or Mr. Fraser, in support of the motion, argued that the act of assembly establishes the fees which the register is entitled to. There is no other rulé.
3 S.C. Eq. 186Cochran v. Cochran (1811)
•cuse ccxxvi. [Construction •■queation°n of survivorship'
3 S.C. Eq. 190Rivers v. Executors of Rivers (1811)
[Tried before Chancellor Desaussure, THE complainant, Elizabeth Rivers, widow of the late Thomas Rivers, files this bill to obtain a competent a-provision out of his estate, under the following circum-Mr. Rivers was a widower, with three chil-^ren, an(l agood estate. Mrs. Elizabeth Cromwell was a widow, with two children, and a property of small value, consisting of a small house and lot in the city, and, neavoes.
3 S.C. Eq. 199Ex parte Lawton (1811)
case xxxvnr. a child ^apot,1^ advancemade rent, the wb of it— to^th^chib dren..
3 S.C. Eq. 203Woddrop v. Ward (1811)
[Tried before Chancellor Besaussure, THIS case comes on upon the bill and answer. The complainant sets forth that a suit was formerly brought by James Cordon against John Price, as survivor John Price & Co. James Theus, the present ant, and others, for the purpose of settling the copartnership concerns of the parties, who were concerned in a particular trading adventure.
3 S.C. Eq. 210Holman ex rel. Parker v. Holman (1811)
«se xe. mckee. The Court mhss the bill of complaint, ingh°into g<a plenary mg*, unless it •appears very faceto™the ■proceedings plainant ° lías wo ground of complaint, or that the court the"01 .prayed..
3 S.C. Eq. 213Sebben v. Trezevant (1811)
case xpr. mckee, The Couri not d®* fic execution “^c^fo^the sale of laud 5 voi esciiGat. deche..
3 S.C. Eq. 223Croft v. Arthur (1811)
case xm. Decree. t0 w'10m a c01.1' veyance is made to cover property from credit-secret^trast heirs, may be 6'Slrl).TlÍllCCÍ TS a‘ witness to a|,“®¿>se the Heeds con-persons with-to cover froinimpenE mg- judg-ag^credit- Q settlement, deeply debt,- cover-iiiET llic o'peat-ei-part Sf the eve of judg-recorded, v°l<l.as t0 stat. oflim. fuf^heVime ofthediscov-ery of the ivaud.
3 S.C. Eq. 241Darrel v. Eden (1811)
case sxhi. jochee. ■ ch^g“abíeon the annual executors’ac-ss kept in hi» hands, for the purposes of the estate — and so he may charge interest on balances in his favor. Executor not liable for debts not recovered, unless there be gross neglect, Each party own assessor5
3 S.C. Eq. 245Witherspoon v. M'Calla (1811)
CisE Xliv-. decme'. count of defectiveness oi title, (or released by the seller on account of a defect in the title) is entitled to reimbursement for actual improvements, from the seller.
3 S.C. Eq. 249Waring v. Middleton (1811)
[Tried before Chancellor Desaussure, THE question in this case arises on the will of Miss Judith Wragg, which was executed in the year 1780. She died soon after, unmarried, and without having revoked her will.
3 S.C. Eq. 256Cudworth ex rel. Hall v. Thompson (1811)
casí nvx. decide. A bequest to SThSrhcfrs but in case’ die5" without theli"8 ÍSSUe’ other per-ítátionoveris not too both ’of nephews dy-of them leav-estate islbso! lutelyjested, and the subsequent limi-The111 cítate vested in the "stobe transé mhsiblp .to the one ieav-lílf'^idow"is to the property, ¿"gnllIsloc^' two-■jvusteStes construed as legal estates- • ChUdi-en- to ^ut^of own where ^ the m1'
3 S.C. Eq. 263Executors of Blake v. Lowe (1811)
case xrvu. Complainant^ afr0mth!e Re-which testator defendant AuR'Rjewl elry in the ,in,iU the do-car^ notes and o-j„er action whjc*} to defendants hands on the delivered to executor
3 S.C. Eq. 269Lowe v. Executors of Blake (1812)
CASE XLVIII. ^ gaoi ,inr|P1. attachment this Court, to at®"ee^kes?he benefit of the insolvent, debtor’s act in a-on*suitpen-ding there. be discharg-the creditor debu or’s obtaining his discharge, This Court will not de-charge him the attachment.
3 S.C. Eq. 273Bunch v. Hurst (1811)
[Tried before Chancellor Desaussure, June, 1811 — Decide, THE bill sets forth that Robert Hurst being in his lifetime seized and possessed of a tract of land, some negroes, horses, cattle and other stock, furniture, &c. made and duly executed his last will and testament on the 36th January, 1793; and after bequeathing certain specific legacies, “ he did give, devise, and bequeath all the rest and residue of his estate, both real and personal, to his wife, Jane Hurst, during…
3 S.C. Eq. 297Alwyn v. Perkins (1811)
¡Tried before Chancellor Besausjsjire, February term, 1811, and continue ed by adjoúrñmentj to THE complainant, who is ^ British subject;, filed a bill in this Court for an account' and settlement of the proceeds of a vessel and cargo entrusted to the care of the defendant Perkins, who is an American citizen.
3 S.C. Eq. 310Winthrop v. Survivors of Lane, Son & Fraser (1811)
0ASE M' pWnants°m" ■made Tracy, tbrt they would barrels 17 Son&Fraser’ of London, Tra$y was io furnish the funds. These contracts ferred by^endorsements to Lane, Son St Fraser, & comp tain ant" Tracy did funds to com-pkinant^but cient. other^'shipments of rice tobemadeby complainant wh^h"06’he desired drawantbiiu° clone but^he caused the bills to be protested. So that he owes them a large sum of money. The complainants shipped 168 barrels of rice to L. S, an(l F- and then stopped shipments. The latter brought suits on the contracts, and recovered verdicts and judgments, at law. The complainants filed this bill, to obtain a perpetual injunction. The Court was of opinion, that the complainants were liable on (heir acceptances to Lane, Son and Frazier, to the extent of the funds bn nished by Tracy, but limited the liability to that extent, and ordered a reference to the master to ascertain the amrunt. Tracy had no right to divert the funds to any other purpose. And complainants did wrong to obey him. This acceptance by the complainants was not nudum pactum.
3 S.C. Eq. 346Executors of Cogdell v. Widow, Heirs, Devisees & Legatees of Testator (1811)
'[Tried before Chan. Desaussure, Charleston, by eonsertt.] BIXIi OT INTERRIEADER. THE bill states that the Testator made and duly ex-last will and testament on 16th May, 1805, by which he devised Ms house and lot, No. 91, and in which he resided, to his wife, for life ; she keeping it x’epair.
3 S.C. Eq. 393Fraser v. M'Pherson (1811)
[Tried before Chancellor Desaussure, Charleston, THE bill sets forth that the complainant, Ann L. Fra•ser, being entitled to considerable personal property under the will of her father, the same was settled by deed dated 6th November, 1782, on her intermarriage with Thomas Fraser, upon certain trusts for the benefit kerself and children.
3 S.C. Eq. 417Ewing v. Smith (1811)
[Tried before Chancellor Desaussure, Charleston, From this decree an appeal was made on the following grounds : 1.
3 S.C. Eq. 466Administrators of Byrne v. Adm'rs of Stewart (1812)
[Tried before Chancellor Waties, Charleston, THE question in this cause arose upon a rule taken out in the above case against Charles Lining, to shew why another solicitor should not be substituted in his place for the defendants, on account of his being ordinary of Charleston district, and disqualified as from practising as a solicitor by an act passed by the Legislature m December, 1811. ^ aPPeare‘d that Mr. Lining was admitted to the bar in the year 1774 ; was appointed…
3 S.C. Eq. 481Witsell v. Linder (1812)
[Tried before Chancellor Waties, Charleston, T. CROLL died intestate, leaving a real and personal estate, without leaving alive father or mother, brother or sister, wife or childi The complainants were his next of kin in the fifth degree in the maternal line ; ■and the defendants were related to him in the Sixth de-s;ree. The only question for the determination of the ... Court was, whether any and which of these parties were entitled to the estate under the statute of Feb,
3 S.C. Eq. 482Colcock v. Ferguson (1812)
[Tiled, before Chancellor Waties, Charleston, 'THIS was a bill to set aside and declare void a bond and mortgage given by the late W. C. Ferguson, when was U1,der a§’e> to Mrs. Ann Ferguson, executrix of Ferguson, deceased, for certain purposes rela-five to the estate of Thomas Ferguson.
3 S.C. Eq. 482Moodie & Black v. Penman, Shaw & Co. (1812)
[Tried before Chancellor Waties, Charleston, Gairdner demanded that a power of attorney from Penman, Shaw and Co. should be sent Jo him to recover debts from their debtors in Carolina, with power to administer on the estates of intestate debtors ; they promise they will send such a power; there were such powers in 1798..
3 S.C. Eq. 497Executors of Holmes & Co. v. Bigelow & Proud (1812)
[Tried before Chancellor Waties, Charleston, THIS case comes before the Court on the report the master, and exceptions .to that report; The riume-rous and various claims insisted on,- and the great cacy in which they are involved, would hate rendered it a most difficult and laborious task to decide on them, if the particó had not consented to refer them to accountants, whose very able investigation and award make part of the master’s report,- • and to which the parties have…
3 S.C. Eq. 501Dickinson v. Survivors of Bold & Rhodes (1812)
{Tried before chuncellor Waties, Charleston,
3 S.C. Eq. 504Gibbes v. Giles (1812)
[in the Court of Appeals,
3 S.C. Eq. 504Webley v. Langstaff (1812)
[.Tried before Chancellor Guillare!, Charléston, THE bill states-that John Beale being possessed of á largo real aiid personal estate,- executed a deed on the' 24th March, 1808,-in the presence of two witnesses, by' which he gave td Francis Bremar' and Florian Charles Mesy¿ in trust for the complainants, the sum of 15001,- and he assigned unto them all the rents arising from the hire of a certain wharf called Beale’s wharf, (then under lease of seven years at the rent of…
3 S.C. Eq. 514Caborne v. Godfrey (1813)
[Tried beforé Chancellor Desaussiire, THIS cause was argued very fully in the Circuit Court of Equity, but as the argument was repeated and enlarged in the hearing on the Court of Appeals, it will bo stated hereafter.
3 S.C. Eq. 529Jamieson v. Forbes (1813)
™*wní¡. a person to a bond IS ílSS> ÍT'ttíd ñotinhis own as or assignee of óferet .a satisfy or se-he does,the tran-be^e? aside* ani th® bo?<1 or s nal des-, Dscns*;
3 S.C. Eq. 535Lequeux v. Oliver (1813)
cAiaMai Bill to set ii¡y a bond and mortgage, which it is alleged were lost by the <w bl:gee in his lifetime. The defendant,the obligor, admitted the es'J the sisted bUthat ll^nw^e n6!-valuable^oE menSyto’cT llis pro; tíme from his And hereííéd uponamemo; siting0fthe a<> knowledgmg that the deed That has been loS been seen nesses; tome doubled if it was die sig-obligee”* -the weight of áeerrred'to be 'witnesses bbligee^ had repeatedly the bond and Mortgage were not g-i-yen for ’ation^but'Tó tsover the ■peJty. it was tlie’bond arid Mortgage set Ulup"°and the bill was áism-ssecl-'■Costs to he divided.
3 S.C. Eq. 539Brown v. Gilliland (1813)
[Tried before Chancellor Desaussure, Charleston, THE bill charges that the complainant Joseph Brown, made a sale at public auction of three, negroes belonging to the estate of his testator, on the 19th day of nary, 1813, by leave of the ordinary, and that the defendant Gilliland being the highest bidder, became the purchaser at five hundred dollars ; and the said negroes were put down to the debit of the said Gilliland, accord-to the custom of auctions.
3 S.C. Eq. 549Exparte Perkins (1813)
gFried before Chancellor Desaussure, Charleston, Captain Perkins was in custody under the process of .this Court, for not complying with a decree of the Court , , , and paying over a sum of money due to the complainants in a suit therein depending. He applies to the Court be discharged under the insolvent debtors’ law. No opposition was made by any creditors. They merely submitted the question whether he could take the benefit of that act in this Court.
3 S.C. Eq. 550Nasar v. Smith (1813)
case mi. ,ft. testator ditate to be iiistwo^iaiif sons (chil-arca oí a deceased son,) 1*nd th,c CW1~ d.-en, bora or t0 be bom of ^hífreai e&ute _ to be, youi4eoTC of attain the age dving mide? 2bthe, sh:il'e oi such one go to the af> tain 21 01-attaint dl’aw had two cua-¿^.th ^ father, and has had one move since, son) claim a estate? ° i>e-c,reeci that they are entitled to no “v°0re Those attain-mg 21 years entitled to ortlí.cifP°1't’lon'í oi tne person-estate, as stands attibit time. The’ real estate not to be d« ?eti- ¡n,nTO|
3 S.C. Eq. 553Dyre v. Sturges (1813)
case wm~ decree. A defendant oSymfharg&-tl,ie bill, and there be-íng no evi-to^®®^0?^' missed. A de-fendimt Ing accounta-in ney, milting that 011 and^dfs-chN£e ing- that he paH itaway.
3 S.C. Eq. 555Boyle v. Rowand (1813)
CASE decebe. A certain por purchase mo.-ggjve¿ hands of the purchaser tó" ineet an ’es> claim 'has and 'the^uS chaser took, possession of igeye1™d creed that as ™u defeulant,1516 should pay (^veífdei*) the amount ed fund^with lnte£Ssttliere to ofVfndemnity for five years,
3 S.C. Eq. 557Smith v. Smith (1813)
casuist, ^ Grand ofkodgeofFreé Masons cannot make new subversive3of fundamental^ offand^marks, of the subor-es^noi^can officers of a corporation composed of dissolve the without^the dy of the so-¿eviction of by^he^lSads of a corpora-corporate bo-j^’i/the^re.. power of re-The seceding1 a chartered luntarjf'asso-not^u’t ?an' suit for 'debts^iue °q .the otoííee.
3 S.C. Eq. 582Gibson v. Broadfoot (1813)
case XXVI DKCRB’B. ,, . , It is not necessary for an nmme'theao"-^ counts refer-pod. ix the two’ arbitra-thdr^coori1 Accoimtants the Court to ter are upon the master, than of arbitrators, and their reports more of jhe coun when ^^themas-ter’s report, "t^níe be "írruí* a;':w „o e^cepVóns j^-mainot of the ,ac-meetings and ry, if the par. pt“ecfre them,
3 S.C. Eq. 590Lainhart v. Administrator of Reilly (1813)
case xxvii. •decree. ... The principal and one of ivT deed or Sig insolvent] this is not bar to tlio claim of the tate of the The delay suing did not amount under the claim. irmtis°mrt^o-bliged to sue ety who is out diction Court aud in solvent.
3 S.C. Eq. 592Hart v. Hart (1813)
•jase ixrni. A father gave io t,'by" parol, fhuithtei-ld<oii the'day of her "‘“'ítioif’sfe and her hus-^p0Y^on of the house, °iq the their ow.ú r Yecut-any con-them"00 He directed be equally dC vided^among except h'.s ei-dares he had and her marriage, ^Yftitlfdto jloId t!ie house and lot absolutely as su,sia11?; abjj^ under all thex circum-ofimpilcatícm^ “*der tlie
3 S.C. Eq. 596Burn v. Administrators Poaug (1813)
case Hpofe Parties a, flTfthe pay? m,.entofas\Im of money, de-atermined by 0f?papl ■ witness, are con-eluded by it. n.ouse^S lot, on which charged,^and purchase mo-co“j w hie a-purchase mo-tinguished, the-mstpce bj1- the origin-vendor oí' b-se yeovcse?7*-unices, A petition-for a. bill of rehearing, iourt petition did Utilice B, case which to bills of-re. parent on the faceofthede-cree : nor is legation^ new matter, jusüce'of the case, which could not be used at the firstf decree! iled to a facts1 in the case do th-e from them by the support the decree^eAnd not entitled! cumstances * °f, th,e. c{lse* to be dischar-without 1,10