Case ID: scl_3/html/0482-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT,
    COLUMBIA,
    APRIL, 1805.
    Zinn and Wife v. Prior and Bumell.
    The act of 1748, authorizes the issuing of a writ of partition, to be directed to five persons to execute the same ; but does not authorize a majority of such commissioners to do so: — the whole of them must join.
    On the return of commissioners to a writ of partition, it appeared, that the return was made by four of the commissioners only; whereupon, it was objected, before Wilds, J. in Edgefield district, that all the five commissioners should have joined in making the return, according to the A. A. 1748. P. L. 218 ; which objection was sustained, and the return was rejected. The motion in this court, was to reverse this determination of the district court.
   Per Curiam.

(Grimkje, Waties, Bay, and Brevard, Justices.)

The decision of the district court was correct. The act oí 1748, authorizes the issuing of a writ, to be directed to five persons, who shall make partition, and shall make a return of the writ, under their hands and seals; but it does not authi-rize a majority of the five persons to do so. Wherever the law empowers a certain number of persons to do a joint act, they must all concur therein It was so decided in the case of the commissioners of inspection for Campbleton warehouse. Bay’s Rep. 348.

Motion refused.

Note. See 3 T. R 592. Where the legislature does not expressly require a joint execution of a power, and it would he attended with inconvenience to obtain it, the above construction does not hold. See Co. Litt. 113, 2 Inst. 380. 3 Vin. Abr. 421, 422. Bulst. 105.