Case ID: scl_5/html/0408-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Nott, J. Brevakd, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
    NOV., 1814.
    David Spears v. John Terry.
    Commissioners of bail have power to admit persons to the benefit of the' prison bounds act, but not of the insolvent debtor’s act.
    This was an action of trespass to try title. The land was sold' under execution by the sheriff of Spartanburgh, as the property of Thomas Leatherwood, and bought by the plaintiff. The defence' set up, was, that Leatherwood had surrendered up all his property, of which this land was a part; and assigned it over to trustees for the benefit of his creditors, according to the provisions of the act for the relief of insolvent debtors. This assignment had been made pursuant to the order of the commissioners of special bail, to whom the surrender had been made.
    The presiding judge, Smith, was of opinion that commissioners of special bail had no power to carry that act into effect; and that the title derived under them was void, and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover. The jury found a verdict accordingly.
    A motion is now made for a new trial, on the ground, that the judge was mistaken in the law in that respect, and had misdirected the jury.
    Farrow, for the motion. Creswell, contra.
    
   Nott, J.

I am of opinion that the verdict ought not to be set aside. The. commissioners have clearly mistaken their powers. They are authorized to admit persons to the benefit of the prison bounds act, but they have nothing to do with the insolvent debtor’s act. This motion, therefore, must be discharged.

Bay, Smith, Guimke, and Colcock, Js., concurred.

Brevakd, J.

Under the-act of assembly of 1788,1 think com-missi'oners of special bail, or one commissioner, may order an assignment of an insolvent debtor’s estate, or any part thereof; and that such assignment, if properly made, is sufficient to convey real estate. In the present case, however, it appears the act was not duly conformed to. There seems to be great informality, and want of certainty.in the proceedings. It' does not clearly appear by what authority, or in what character, the three persons acted, who style themselves “commissioners.” The assighment is not under seal. The word “ assignment,” must be taken in a legal and technical sense, to mean a deed or grant. The assignment does not pursue the directions of the act. It is “ for the mutual benefit, of all. the creditors whereas, the act directs it “ to be made to the plaintiff", subject to all prior incumbrances.”

. 1 am of opinion that the District Court acted correctly, in rejecting the writing offered as an assignment; and that the motion for a new trial ought to be refused.