The Camden weekly journal. [volume] (Camden, South-Carolina) 1853-1861, 1853-03-15
An Important Legal Decision.

We have just finished reading the very able
and most elaborate opinion Of Judge Wardlaw,
in the Court OF Errors as to the validity of.sre-
cording deed after the expiration of six months.
This opinion of the Court was7delivered last De.
cember, in the case of w. D.Steele, Ordinary of
Piekers District, against J. Mansell, ct al, Ex'rs,
DC. The case was argued three times in the
Court of Appeals in Law, and once in the Court
of Errors, before full bench of ChanceIlors and
Judges. 1t had been four or five or six years in
Court and the Court of Law was divided iu re.
gard to the questions involved. Our partner and
friend, Col. Elliott NJ. Keith, was for the Plain
tiff, and we were for the Defendant The opin-,
ion of Judge Wardlaw is signed by Chancellors
Dunkin, Dargan and Wardlaw, and Judges Ev-
ans, Frost and Whtner. Justices O'Neall and
Withers, and Chancellor Johnston dissented from
the opinion of Judge WardIaw. The length Of
the opinion may be judged of when we state that
the copying oft cost us twelve dollars and fifty
cents.
The question decided in the case was whether
deed not recorded in six months, but put on
record before sale of the land by the Sheriff, as
the property of the vendor, was valid against the
purchaser at Sheriff's sale, who had recorded his
deed within the six months, and who had no no
tice of the previous sale by the vendor. tt was
decided that the deed to the first purchaser was
valid and good against the title of tie subsequent
purchaser at Sheriff s sale. The Court held that
orrc 10 an lnr w1rru;
within six months After the first sale COL Benz !
jamin Hagood sued Corbin, the vendor, and OBJ
tanned jud gment against him. After this judg- !
ment was obtained the deed from Corbin was (
put on record some four years after its execution,
but before the sale to Hagood. Had the opin-
ion of the Court been different from what it il,
it would have put in jeopardy great many Of
the land titles in South Carolina. There are
very few persons who do record their deeds with
in six months, as is required by law. In doing
so they run the risk of the vendors selling the
same land to some one else without notice of the
previous sale. But according to the present de-
csion they are in no danger of a creditor obtain
ing a judgment against the vender provided they
record their title before the Sheriff sells the land
under the judgment Of the creditor.
There had been some conflict in the decisions
of our Courts on these points. All the South
Carolina cases, and all the statutes of South Car
olina on the subject of recording deeds, DC,
have been reviewed by Judge Wardlaw with
great ability in the present opinion Of the Court
of Errors. The law is now settled, as We sup
posed it was settled previously. Judge O'Neall,
however, was presiding when the case was heard
on the Circuit, and he ruled the law against us.
After five years battling the point with the Court
and before the Court we have succeeded in es-
tablishing the principle in favor of our clients
All that we regret is, that the amount involved
in the case will not be sufficient to compensate
us for settling the law. Inaslnuch as it was
case in which every man in South Carolina who
had not recorded his land titles within six months
had deep interest, we think we might estab-
lish an equitable claim against them to assist
our client, Mansell, in paying counsel fees
Southern Patriot.