The Lancaster ledger. [volume] (Lancaster, S.C.) 1852-1905, 1858-10-27
Our Court.

The Court Of General Sessions and COM
mon Pleas adjourned at this place on Sat
urday evening last, having been in session
the entire week. The impression in the
early part Of the week was that it would
last only few days, but il scetns that there
was more business on hand than was an
ticipated. Several cid cases were disposed
of that had been put of from various
terms; these required time, as law suits,
/ IN ."r al way, are not rendered easier Of
eluc 'Gdtlon by age. All the business ready
for tI,si was disposed of and the docke,s
are once more cleared.
The Grand Jurors were discharged on
Tuesday. Their report and presentments
were brief, but covering evervthing which
usually comes under their notice. No com
plaint VAS made this time of the condition
of our village streets nor of the public
roads of the District Several persons
were presented for retailing without license
aud some for other offences less NUN.
Der, how ever, we believe, than usual. n
The remnant of the once powerful TriIe
Of Catawba's WAS subject OF notice
by the Grand Jary. They recommended
that the Legislature adopt measures for
/ the removal of these poor Indians from
their native homes, that they may be no
longer bnrthen and expense to christian
civilization. Well may these red men say
as the Son OF Man once said 10 certain
scribe, Who desired to follow him whittier
soever he went (Mathew vii-2O)
The cases tried and adjudicatrd were no,
in general Of much interest except TO the'pa..
ties themselves. There were no penal con.
victions. One party indicted for retailing
without license, pleaded guilty and was sen
| fenced by the Court TO one months impris.
| oument.
One case Of civil nature, involving the Ii
! tie TO II large and valuable tract of land cx.
| cited some interest. II occupied day and
nearly half in its adjustment, and somc of
the points connected Herewith are Of gen.
eraI Importance: -
This was i'm action of irespass TO try title,
brous Int by John w. Belk and wifc against
John Massey. The plaintiffs claim was
| based upon n deed of conveyance Of the
land in dispute, executed by one Elijah Phil.
lips to his daughter, purporting To have
been for valuable considerations This deed
was executed in 1924, and about three
years su bsequently, the vendec became the
wife of Bek. Phillips and his wife con.
tin"ed IN possession OF the land in question,
and II was proven, that on the interesting
occasion when Belk made proposals TO the
old man Phillips for his daugh er. this deed
Of conveyance WAS talked OF, aud that he
(Belk) gave verbal promise that the old
people would never be turned out by him.
which promise it seems that he relgiuusy
adhered to, for they continued to live upon
the land until their deaths, exercising all
the rights OF ownership. Mrs. Phillips. who
survived her husband, died about 1853, and
shortly after, this suit was Instituted by The
plaintiffs, against the defendant now in
| possession.
TO this the defendant answered -
LIST, that The deed from Phillips to his
daughter was founded in fraud, that il was
| given with the view TO scr, en- the land from
liabilities with which he (Phillips) was then
threatened, and consequently was void
2dly, that allowing il TO have been valid
Phillips and his wife were in possession a
sufficient length Of time after its execution
to confer title upon them BY Operation of
law. Lastly: defendant claimed title in
himself, by virtue Of deed from the Sher.
III OF this District, who sold the land in
1874 under an execution against Phillips
Purchaser at Sherifi7s sale bought wi,hou,
notice, aud several years thereafter, trans
fered his claim TO defendant Tor valuable
consideration.
The Court instructed the jury that the
deed from Phillips to his dau ghter was in.
valid rs to all claims, Of whatever kind
against Phillips at the time Of its execution;
Tor, although the deed purported TO be for
valuable consideration, yet il was admitted
by counsel on both sides that nothing was
paid, The daughter having been under age
and, as proved, possessed Of no property !;
the plaintiffs counsel claiming that it was
nevertheless, a good consideration. Bot it
appeared that Phillips had other property,
sufficient 20 pay off all claims against him
previous 10 1924, and that these clnims were
finally settled and the Court held, that the
deed was good against Phillips himself and
against subsequent creditors.
AS to the statute Of Limitations pleaded
by the defence, the Court subscribed to n
prinePle of law laid down by the counsel
for plaintiff as applicable in this case, viz: :
that when man enters upon land, ackrowI-
edgng the title to be in another, lie cannot
afterwards plead The statute of limitations
in favor Of himself; unless he expressly dis
avows the title Of the other, gives proper
no'ice and the statutes 10 rnn from the date
OF such notice, IL did not appear that Phillips
had ever repudiared his daughters claim.
Next, rs TO defendants title under deed