Volume 9 — South Carolina Equity Reports

<p>A trustee substituted by tbe Court of Equity in tbe place of a trustee appointed by tbe parties, Trio bas surrendered bis trust, in pursuance of tbe Act of 1796, is within tbe provision of tbe Act of 1824, requiring trustees appointed by tbe Court to return annual accounts of. tbe ostatos in tbeir possession.</p>

<p>The committee of a lunatic is entitled to five per cent, commissions for receiving and paying out the funds of the lunatic.</p>

Before DeSausstjre, Ch., at Darlington, February, 1830. This case will be 'sufficiently understood from the circuit decree, and the opinion delivered in the Court of Appeals. The circuit decree is as follows : DeSaussure, Ch. This case comes up upon the report of the Commissioner, and exceptions thereto by complainants and defendants.

Before Johnston, Ch. at Sumter, February, 1831. Johnston, Ch. The only question submitted in this case arises on the following facts.- Wm. Wright, on the 5th of January, 1808, made his will and died the same year.

<p>A parent having advanced some of his children in his life time, executed promissory-notes to the others, payable after his death, with a view to equalize them: Held, that the notes were void for want of consideration.</p> <p>A promissory note given by a parent to a child by way of advancement, to be paid after the death of the parent, cannot be supported as donatio causa mortis. (a)</p>

Before DeSaussure, Ch. at Barnwell, February, 183.1. The original bill states that one Gideon Hagood, on the'10th December, 1804, by a deed duly executed, for certain considerations therein expressed, bargained, sold' and delivered certain negro slaves in the said deed named, unto o.rie Daniel Miller upon the following irasts, viz: as to two of the said ‘slaves, namely, Dinah and Mary, with .their future 'issue, in trust for the complainant, then Tolly McLewrath, and the…

Halstead Davis died intestate, and administration of his estate was granted to John Patton, who entered into a verbal agreement with the. defendant, the. widow of the' intestate, to let her have a small tract of land, part of a larger, át a fixed price per acre, iii satisfaction of a balance due to her on account of'her. distributive share of the estate, and shé gave him a receipt, in Which she acknowledged to.have received.in full the balance due her.

<p>An administrator who has neglected to make annual returns, and thereby forfeited his commissions allowed in ordinary cases, cannot maintain an action to recover compensation for extraordinary trouble in the course of his administration.</p>

<p>By making a return to the Ordinary within one year after the granting of administration, the administrator of an administrator may entitle his intestate’s estate to commissions for tho transactions of one year preceding the intestate’s death.</p>

Before DeSaussure, Ch., at Newberry, July, 1829. The case came before the Court on the report of the Commissioner and exceptions thereto. DeSaussure, Ch. The bill was filed on the ground of quia timet.

On a bill filed to 'marshal the assets of the estate of the defendant’s intestate, to which his creditors yrere made parties, the complainant, on a reference before the Commissioner, exhibited, as a demand against the estate, a promissory note, drawn by one Elijah Perry, payable to the intestate,, for $300. The intestate. had indorsed the note to one C. Morgan, before it became due, who transferred it to one Cloud, and he to the complainant, by delivery after it became due.

<p>Plaintiff and defendant had been copartners; at the dissolution of tho firm defendant undertook to collect the debts due. After some time they came to a settlement, and the defendant paid over to the plaintiff his share of so much of the partnership funds as he (the defendant) admitted to be in his hands : at that time the plaintiff claimed to charge the defendant with the sums of which this bill seeks to recover his share. Prom the time of the settlement to the filing of the bill more than four years having elapsed, held, that defendant was protected by the statute of limitations.</p>

<p>Mero delay to enforce the demand, and indulgence by a creditor to a principal debtor, without any binding alteration of the contract, will not discharge the surety: and this notwithstanding a positive request from the surety that he will enforce the demand against the principal debtor.</p>

<p>The law of marriage in South-Carolina; what the contract of marriage is; how it may he entered into; the distinction between the contract itself, and the evidence of it.</p> <p>An engagement to marry, per verba, de futuro, copula seguente, held to be no marriage, the parties, at the time, looking to a future celebration, and not themselves regarding the copula as consummation.</p>

Before DeSaussure, Ch., at Edgefield, June, 1831. DeSaussure, Ch. Andrew Glover died intestate, on the 3d August, 1822, leaving as his next of kin, his -widow Dicey, and his daughter Sarah, then the wife of John Nail, now of John Marsh. John Nail administered on the estate of Andrew Glover, and returned to the Ordinary’s office, an appraisement of his property, to the amount of §8080 25.

<p>Plaintiff lias tlie right to examine a defendant as a witness, without his consent, to any point in the cause in which he is not interested; and with his consent he may examine him against his interest, and other defendants have no right to object.</p> <p>Plaintiff, in exocntion, desiring to purchase defendant’s land at a low price, ordered the Sheriff to sell for specie. The order was indorsed on the execution, hut no such condition ivas stated in the advertisement. On the day of sale, a junior creditor offered $3,000 for the land, in hank bills. His offer was refused, and the land was sold to a third person, for $1,000.' The debtor remained in possession. Fields that the sale was fraudulent, as against the junior creditor, and, at his instance, it was sot aside.</p> <p>A judgment creditor has a right to require payment in specie; hut this, like all other legal rights, must be exercised in good faith, and not with a view of sacrificing his debtor’s property, and obtaining an unconscionable advantage.</p> <p>A Bheriff’s advertisement must contain, not only the names of the parties, and a description of the property, hut also the terms of sale, and if he intends to sell for specie, it should so state.</p> <p>If a Sheriff sell without having duly advertised, his sale is void, semble ; and if he sells for specie, he has not duly advertised, unless that was stated as a condition.</p> <p>Any act, on the part of the auctioneer, or persons causing the sale, wliicli prevents competition among bidders, will vitiate the sale; and a Sheriff’s requiring specie, without having advertised that as a condition of the sale, is such an act.</p> <p>Though one cannot bo punished for the fraud of others, yet he cannot avail himself of it.</p> <p>A fraudulent Sheriff’s sale is void, and even an innocent purchaser can claim nothing under it.</p> <p>The Shoriff is the agent of a purchaser, at his sale; and such purchaser will be affected by the Sheriff’s fraud.</p> <p>A purchaser’s, at Sheriff’s sale, permitting the debtor to remain in possession of the land, is a strong circumstance of fraud.</p> <p>A gift of slaves, unaccompanied by actual possession, is, as against subsequent creditors of the donor, without notice, void; and it makes no difference that the donee is a minor, residing with the donor, his parent. In such a case, all creditors without notice, whose debts were contracted before the donee left the parental roof and took the slaves-into his own possession, may look to the slaves for satisfaction of their debts, (a)</p> <p>The cases, in this State, relative to fraudulent gifts reviewed</p>

The bill in this case was filed for partition of a tract of land. The intestate left a widow, entitled to one-third of the land, and seven children, (of whom plaintiff's wife was one, and John Gill, the defendant, another,) each entitled to one-seventh of two-thirds.

<p>The Commissioner is not entitled to one per cent, for receiving, and one per cent, for paying oiit money, collected by liim on a bond taken by his predecessor, for property sold under the order of the Court.</p>

<p>Vendee gaye his single bill for the purchase money of land, and was afterwards sued at law on the bill and judgment received against him: he then filed his bill in Equity, claiming a pro rata deduction from the amount of the judgment, — alleging that a valuable part of the land had been taken from him by a paramount title: — Held} that he was not entitled in Equity to the relief he sought, — that he could, and should have availed himself of the matter, as defence to the action at law.</p> <p>Where a party may, at law, avail himself of a defence, and neglects to do so, he cannot afterwards apply to the Court of Equity for an injunction.</p> <p>Where part of the land is taken from the purchaser by a paramount title, he may, in an action at law for the purchase money, claim a deduction for the value of such part, (a.)</p>

<p>Testator, having several children, bequeathed to a married daughter a very inconsiderable legacy, and to a son a double portion, taking from the son a bond, conditioned to hold one-half of the personal property, which he was to receive of his father’s estate, for the benefit of the married daughter and her children. Eleven years after, the testator executed a second will, with similar .provisions. Parol evidence was held admissible to show, that when the second will was executed, and afterwards, the son acknowledged the trust; and, ho being dead, his representatives were ordered to account to the cestui que trusts.</p> <p>Parol evidence is admissible to show a trust in personalty bequeathed, the bequest being absolute. ' '</p>

<p>Bill by vendee to rescind a contract for the sale of land; vondor had, at most, only an equitable title to the land, dependent upon his payingforit,* this was known tq ven-dee, but she was told that vendor expected to be authorized by the Court to make titles j five years elapsed,’ and vendor had taken no steps towards the perfection of the title, and, in the mean time, had become insolvent. Held, that vendee was entitled to have the contract rescinded t and she, having been in possession, was ordered to account for the rents and profits, deducting therefrom the value of any permanent improvements she may have made on the land. ‘ .</p>

<p>T. M., being indebted to guardian, in right of his ward, by judgment, conveyed her slaves to him, on condition that he should pay and satisfy her debts. Guardian entered satisfaction on the judgment, and became insolvent. His letters of guardianship were then revoked,- and one, who was surety on his bond, appointed guardian'in his place. Held, that the new guardian might sustain a bill, in behalf of the ward, against the previous guardian and his creditors, to make the slaves specifically liable to satisfy the debt to the ward. )</p> <p>One who takes an assignment, or bill of sale, of slaves, on condition that he will pay and satisfy the debts of the assignor, is a trustee for the creditors of the ’assignor.</p> <p>A trustee cannot make any advantage to himself, by the application of, the trust fund to . his private purposes.</p> <p>So long as property held in trust, or'a trust fund, can be traced and distinguished, it will enure to the benefit of the cestui que trust; and all claims of the creditors of the trustee must be postponed until the trust is discharged.</p> <p>'Where a guardian takes slaves in satisfaction of a debt due his ward, intending to hold them as his own property, the ward, nevertheless, or a new guardian appointed for him, may elect to follow the slaves, as the ward’s property, or to claim the money.</p> <p>A surety on a guardianship bond, paying the' debt of his principal, has the right to be subrogated to all the ward’s securities and rights against the principal.</p>

This case was heard ai Spartanburgh, June, 1831. The bill was for partition of a tract of land — the plaintiffs being entitled to one-half thereof, and the defendants to the other half. The Commissioners in partition, divided the land into two equal parts, (valuing each at $1000,) and assigned one part to the plaintiffs. They recommended that the other part should be sold, and the proceeds divided among the defendants. No motion was made to recommit, or set aside the return.

<p>Bill filed in Union against four defendants, one of whom resided out of the State, — oner in Union, and two in Charleston • Held, that either of the defendants residing in Charleston, had the right to require the complainant to transfer the bill to that district.</p>

<p>Creditors may file a bill against a donee of their deceased debtor to have a voluntary conveyance of slaves set aside as fraudulent; but to such a bill the legal representative of the debtor must be a party.</p> <p>A voluntary post nuptial marriage settlement, unless recorded in the Secretary of State’s office, is void, as against creditors of the husband,</p> <p>A' voluntary conveyance cannot be allowed to prevail against an existing debt, whether great or small, where due diligence is used by the creditor.</p> <p>The rule laid down m.McElwee vs. Button, (2 Bail. 128,) and Izard vs. Izardi (Bail. Eq. 228,) “ that slight indebtedness, such as for current expenses, will not vitiate a gift,” explained.</p> <p>Eules for asceitaining when a voluntary conveyance is void, against creditors existing and subsequent.</p>

<p>Testator bequeathed as follows : “ X lend unto my daughter E.,” (a feme coveri) “ enduring her natural life, my negro girl Rósela, at the discretion of my executors from year to year as they think proper; and then said Rósela and her increase to be equally divided amongst the heirs of her body j and in ease the said E. shall die without issue, then the said Rósela and her increase to be equally divided among all my other heirs the executors delivered Rósela to E. and her husband, who had her in possession many years: Held) that the legal title remained in the executors; that the marital rights of the husband had not-attached, and that Rósela and her increase were not liable for his debts, and could not be mortgaged by him.</p>

<p>Equity has jurisdiction to enjoin a mortgagee of slaves from selling them' under the morfc- ' gage, on the ground that the bond, to secure Which the mortgage was given, was usurious — the principal and legal interest having been paid; and thus having jurisdiction of the matter, it will enjoin the creditor from proceeding at law upon the bond.</p>

<p>Defendant bought plaintiff’s land, of which he was in possession, at Sheriff’s sale— brought trespass to try title against him, and recovered. On bill filed to have the sale set aside for fraud, held, that the recovery, in the action of trespass to try title, was no bar to the bill.</p> <p>A defendant in execution, whose land has been sold at Sheriff’s sale, is entitled to ten years, under the statute of limitations, within which to file a bill to have the sale set aside for fraud, (a)</p>

<p>Several plaintiffs cannot demand by one bill, several matters perfectly distinct and unconnected, against one defendant.</p> <p>Two plaintiffs filed their bill against defendant, alleging that he was in possession of land belonging to plaintiffs jointly, and claiming from him, in behalf of one plaintiff, an account for a crop, which that plaintiff and defendant had, by agreement, made on the land, in 1828, on shares ; and also, in behalf of both plaintiffs, possession of the land, and an account for rents and profits: Held, that the bill was bad for multifariousness.</p> <p>An agreement between A. <fc B. to plant a tract of land belonging to one of them — each furnishing a certain number of hands and specific farming tools, and to divide the crop in certain shares, is not a copartnership, for settlement of which a bill will lie: the remedy is at law.</p> <p>A bill will not lie by co-tenants to compel a defendant to give up the possession of land, and account for the rents and profits, — the remedy is trespass to try the title.</p> <p>An appeal from a final decree, brings up the whole case; the Court will examine interlocutory circuit decrees made at previous terms, and give judgment upon them.</p>

Before DeSatjssure, Ch., at Charleston, April, 1831. This case will be understood from the circuit decree, and the opinion delivered in the Court of Appeals. The following is the circuit decree. * DeSausstjre, Ch. The defendant, Sarah B. Gist, before her marriage ‘with her late husband, States Gist, joined with him in executing a marriage . settlement, dated in Dec., 1814, and appointed Thos. W. Bacot, and Henry H. Bacot, trustees thereof, who joined in executing the deed.

<p>Bequest of personalty to J. S., for life, " provided, nevertheless, that the same shall in no wise, and by no means be made liable for, or subject to any of his debts, contracts, or agreements, but the same shall remain in his possession, and for his sole and only use, benefit and behoof, for bnd during the term of his natural lifewith remainder “ from and after his death.” Held, lhatM. S’s. life estate was subject to his debts, and that it passed by his assignment, undor the insolvent debtors’ Act. (a.)</p>

<p>The Court having for distribution a fund belonging to several parties, one of whom had received payment of a part of his demand, held) that such party, before he could receive a portion of the common fund, must bring into the account the amount he had already received.</p> <p>Held, also, that another party, who had been paid in full, and claimed nothing from the common fund, could not be compelled to account for what he had already received.</p>

<p>The duties and privileges of a Master, or Commissioner in Equity, expire with his term of office : sales ordered, but not made, his successor must make; and the officer who makes the sales is entitled to the commissions,</p>

<p>The executor of J. TV. filed a bill against J. S., executor of A. G-., to recover a debt due by A. G-. to J. TV., and had a decree, which was satisfied by setting off against it a debt due by the executor of J. TV., individually, to J. S.: Held, that a judgment creditor of J. TV., might file a bill to obtain satisfaction of his debt, out of the funds of J. TV., in the hands of J. S.</p> <p>Creditors or legatees may follow the assets of the estate which have been improperly disposed of by the executor, particularly in payment of his own. debt.</p>

<p>A vendor may sustain a bill against the vendee, for the specific performance of a contract for the sale of land.</p> <p>Thirteen years having elapsed since contract was made, before bill filed, and plaintiff, then and now, being unable to make a perfect title, and the land having depreciated in value, held, that plaintiff was not entitled to a decree for specific performance, against vendees in possession.</p> <p>On a bill for specific performance, by vendor, against vendee in possession, the Court, refusing a decree for specific performance, may decree restitution of the premises, and an account for rents and profits, allowing vendee the value of all permanent improvements.</p> <p>A vendee, in possession, under a contract to purchase, cannot claim under the statute of limitations.</p>

<p>Permission by one brother to another, to have possession of slaves for a number of years as a loan, and to hold them out to the world, and treat and use them as his own, held, under all the circumstances, to be a fraud upon a creditor of the bailee, who trusted him, supposing the slaves to be his, and took from him a mortgage of the slaves to secure the debt; and the mortgage was held to be a valid lien upon the slaves, as against the bailor and his representatives.</p>

<p>An administrator cannot retain for a debt of hi% own, -which was barred by the statute of limitations at the death of his intestate.</p>

Before Johnston, Ch., at Charleston, January, 1831. Johnston, Ch. Margaret M. Mazyck, in contemplation of a marriage with James S. Hopkins, executed a marriage settlement, dated the 24th of February, 1824, conveying the whole of her estate, real and personal, as set forth in a schedule thereunto annexed, to Samuel Wilson and Henry O’Hara, in trust, that if the said James S. Hopkins should survive her, and she should have no children living at her death, the whole of said…

Before DeSaussure, Ch., at Charleston, April, 1831. DeSaussure, Ch. The bill is filed, in this case, to oblige the defendant to account for the estate of John Rhodes, which was assigned to the defendant, Morton A. Waring, and others, who are now dead, to pay his debts. The demand of'the complainant is founded on a judgment, confessed for $679, on the 6th April, 1813, by Rhodes and Otis, to the late J. G. Barnwell.

Before DeSaussure, Ch., at Walterboro', January, 1831. DeSaussure, Ch. The case came up on the report of the Commissioner, (and exceptions thereto on behalf of complainants,) that the complainants have established their right; and he has stated the amount for which the defendant is accountable.

Before DeSatjssure, Ch., at Charleston, April, 1831. DeSatjssure, Ch. By a marriage settlement between Barnaby Coffie and Catharine Came, dated 15th June, 1793, the estates of Mrs. Carne were settled to the use of the intended husband and wife, during their joint lives, remainder to Mr. Coffie for life — remainder to such persons as Mrs. Carne, by her last will, notwithstanding her coverture, might limit and appoint.

Before DeSaussure, Ch., at Georgetown, April, 1831. DeSaussure,,Ch. The bill is filed, by a judgment creditor of the late R. F. Withers, on behalf of himself and other creditors, in order to make his estate liable to their demands, according to their respective liens or rights.

Before DeSaussure, Ch., at Charleston, December, 1831. DeSaussure, Ch. Prior to the marriage of Major James Ladson to Miss Judith Smith, in the year 1778, a marriage settlement was executed, in which it was recited that Miss Smith was entitled to £100,000 currency, which, on the marriage, would come into the possession of her husband.

Before Johnston, Ch., at Charleston, January, 1831. Thomas Drayton, the defendant’s testator, among other things bequeathed as follows : . “ I .give and bequeath my driver, Dick, and his family, to wit, his wife and children, also my carpenters, Robert, Joe' and Jim, and my house servants, George and Daniel, with the future issue of the females from this date, to my son William Henry Drayton, during his 'natural life, and after his death to such son lawfully begotten of his…

Before DeSaussure, Ch., at Beaufort, January, 1831. Robert Oswald and others, who were entitled, under the will of George Stephens, deceased, to a distributive share of a legá-cy of a large number of slaves, filed their bill against Charles Givens and Wm.

<p>Plaintiff and defendant liad been copartners : they dissolved and had a settlement intended to be in full: no account was stated and signed, but the firm being in debt each agreed to give his individual note to the creditor for a certain portion of the debt: the notes were given and afterwards paid: — on bill filed, held that the settlement was a bar to any further account, there being no charge of' fraud or mistake.</p>

Before DéSaussure, Ch., at Charleston, April, 1831. DeSaussure, Ch. The bill is filed by the complainant to obtain the judgment of the Court on the will of his uncle, Mr. John Edmondston. That will, .executed on the 5th day of October, 1817, was proved before the Ordinary, and, it is to be presumed, duly executed to pass real estate, because the.

<p>If husband of tenant for life of slaves holds over after the death of his wife, his possession is adverse, and may, after the time limited by the statute of limitations, bar the remainder-man, or reversioner.</p> <p>If the wife dies after the first of March, the possession will not be adverse until the end of the year.</p> <p>There is a wide distinction between promises to revive a debt barred by the statute of limitations, and admissions giving character to possession: in the latter, any admission of the party in possession, which goes to show that the possession was not intended, in its commencement or continuance, to defeat the other party’s title, will generally prevent the possession from being considered adverse.</p>

Before DeSaussure, Ch.', at Charleston, January, 1832. This case came up on exceptions to the report of the Master, Mr. Furman. Held: most of them friendly indorsements, which he was obliged to pay in July and August last, amounting to about $800.

Before DeSaussüre, Ch., at Charleston, January, 1832. The defendant, Jane Mey, widow of Charles S. Mey, appeals from so much of the Chancellor’s decree as limits her dower, of the real estate devised by Florian C. Mey to John Henry Mey, and the husband of this defendant, to an assessment on a moiety of the clear residue, after payment of the debts of the devisor.

Before Johnston, Ch., at Charleston, January, 1832. The testator, John Ashe, by one clause of his will,devised to his son, John A. S. Ashe, for life, a lot in Charleston, with remainder to his children, and in default of children, over ; and; by another clause, bequeathed to him “ ten thousand dollars to enable him to build a house on the lot.” By separate clauses, he devised to his daughter, Harriet Ashe, for life, another lot in Charleston, with remainder to her children y…

<p>Where a judgment is recovered against principal and surety, and the surety pays the debt, he is entitled to the security of the judgment as against his principal.</p> <p>An interlocutory judgment is not such a judgment as is contemplated by the Act of 1789, prescribing the order in which the debts of a testator or intestate shall be paid.</p>

Before Johnston, Ch., at Union, June, 1831. Held: that the taking a judgment, with a consciousness that it was for more than was due, formed no ground for an injunction of it, if the person against whom it was pronounced, had the control of evidence before the trial,, to show how much was really due.

<p>A legacy to a wife Id ears interest, as other legacies do, from one year from the testator’s death; she will not he allowed interest, as children sometimes*are, for maintenance.</p>

This case came before the Court, JohNstoN, Ch., presiding, on the report of Commissioner Gray, as follows: “ This case has been referred to me under the following order, made on the 12th inst.: ‘ ordered, that this case be referred to the Commissioner to report on the expediency of the sale proposed by the parties interested.’ “ It is an application to the Court for its aid and sanction to enable the executors of the will of C. W. Bulow, formerly of this city, deceased, to…

<p>On a bill of revivor, to carry into effect a final decree of the Court of Equity, which has been affirmed in the Court of Appeals, the defendant cannot be permitted to bring into review the merits of the case, which have been once considered and decided,</p> <p>Where a ease has been heard and decided upon its merits, by the Court of Appeals, a re-hearing, or bill of review, will not be granted, upon any other ground than newly discovered evidence since the trial.</p>

<p>Conveyance of land and judgment confessed set aside as fraudulent as to creditors.</p> <p>A vendor’s continuing in possession of land after a sale does not of itself constitute fraud, as in the case of a chattel; yet, if the grantor remains in possession, as before, as apparent owner, paying no rent, it is evidence that the sale was colorable, and that some trust for the grantor was intended.</p> <p>A conveyance intended to defeat creditors, may be fraudulent as to them, even though a full consideration be paid 5 and the inserting of a larger consideration than that paid, is some evidence that the transaction was colorable.</p> <p>Where a judgment confessed is impeached by a creditor for fraud, it is a circumstance entitled to considerable weight, where the transaction is of a doubtful character, that it w^s confessed pending the creditor’s suit.</p> <p>A judgment may be fraudulent as to other creditors, though the debt bo bona fide due.</p>

<p>Testator devised lands to his sons “to be equally divided between them and the heirs of their bodies: if either of my said sons should depart this life, leaving no lawful issue of his body, then it is my will that his or their share of my lands, so dying, shall be for the surviving brothers or brother, and their or his heirs —Irlcld, that B., one of the sons, who had children living, might convey his share of the lands, and thereby bar, not only his own issue, but also the limitation over, (supposing the same to be valid,) to the surviving brothers.</p>

<p>Before Harper, Ch., at Newberry, July, 1834.</p>

<p>A wife may, hy her next friend, sustain a hill against her husband and the administrators, for a settlement out of her distributive share of her father’s estate.</p> <p>The question, whether the income shall be paid to her separate uso, reserved until the coming in of the report; and the Commissioner ordered to report the terms of a settlement, &c.</p>

<p>Where an absent party is unheard of for seven years, the presumption is3 that he died at the commencement of that period: vide Chapman vs. Cooper, (5 Bich. 452) contra, semble.</p>

Before Harper, Ch., at Charleston, January, 1829. Harper, Ch. The bill is filed against tbe defendant as administrator of the estate of Joseph Clark, deceased, for an account of the personal estate of his intestate, which is claimed by the complainants as escheated property, the said Clark having died intestate and without relations, under a grant from the State by the Act of the Legislature passed in 1799.

<p>Verdict at law relieved against on the ground of surprise.</p>

<p>What passes under a ‘bequest of <c all my stock in trade at Lanrons Conrt House ; the notes and hook accounts there owing to me,” considered; and reference to the Commissioner ordered.</p>

<p>Before Harper, Ch., at Charleston, April, 1830.</p>

<p>An order, made upon the return of a rule to show cause, directing a late Commissioner to turn over the official papers, funds, &c. in his hands, to his successor, and, upon his failing to do so, that he he attached, is not the subject of appeal; or, if it be, the appeal does not suspend the execution of the order.</p>