The Camden journal. [volume] (Camden, S.C.) 1866-1891, 1867-02-14
The Negro Bond Questior-An Interest
ing Case.

The Negro Bond ouestior-An Interest
ing Case.
The last number of the Pickens
Courier publishes the Circuit Decree
Of Chancellor johnson in the case of
Calhounrs. Calhoun, which was heard
at Pickcns c. H., in July, 1866. An
appeal will be taken, and the case
decided finally, at the May term of
the Court Of Appeals. From the
important principles involved in the
decision, the case is interesting not
merely to the profession, but. to our
TO our citizens generally.
Charleston Courier. :
1t seems that in May, 1854, Mrs.
Floride Calhoun and her daughter,
Comclia NJ. Calhoun, conveyed the
Fort Hill plantation and fifty negro
slaves to a. p. Calhoun, for the sum
of forty nine thousand dollars taking
Ills individual bond for the Whole a.
mount, payab!cin fifteen years, and
secured by two separate mortgages,
one Of the Fort lIill Tract, and the
other of the negroes. The bill was
filed on the 18th March, 1866, to
foreclose thcmortgagc, and secure the
payment Of the whole amount of the
bond, and for the defendants, Ghe
heirs of A. P. Calhoun, decd, vari-
Gus dcfenccs were urged:
[ 1st. It was insisted that the widow
was only entitled to dover in the land,
after; payment of the purchase money
of the same, and not to the whole
mortgage debt, and that the personal
estates IS to.be applied to the satisaac-
ton Of the mortgage: This last pro-
position the Chancellor admits, but
,controxerts the frst,in these words ::
"a widow can only take dover i'll
land ,murtgaged by the husband, at
the time Of purchase, and as a part of
the Same transaction, subject to the
payment,of the mortgage debt, whc-
thcr the same was in whole or III part
only, for the purchase money of the
land, provided the same is receivable
at law -, 80. -.
I'd. It was contended that the con-
stderation Of the bond had failed, In-
Msmuch as it had been giyen for nc
.patcll. On this point, the Clancel-
lof remarks: "For more than ten
years after the purchase, there was
no complaint of any failure Of consid-
GRAFTON, and is not alleged, there Was
any intrinsic defect in the titles when
the bond was given. at the time,
property in slaves, asin' every tlling
else, was subject to be destroyed by
revolution, and ithas been so destroy
! ed. But did not intestatc buy them
! with the contingency distinctly be-
fore him tllatthe institution Of slave
i,ry might:in q short, time be abolish
led, either by a revolution in the gov
ernment,. OF by constitutional amend
1nelt?' til well known that the Fal-
.ue .of slaves at different times, was
greatly affected by the political as
poets Of the. country. And l think
it may safely. be taken for granted,
THAT wien the intestate made the pur-
Echase, he took the chances of emanci-
patton into consideration, and paid
such,a price as he supposed the in
/ trinsic value Of the slaves lesScncd by
such chances would justify him in do
ing. :f.* * :: But it is insisted
that the institution Of slavery was
not abolished;untili it was done by oul
:;tate authorities. If the State did
; the act freely, and not in compliance
With the demands of an authority
which f1le was forced to obeJ, then
I'll" owners Of slaves might be justified
in presenting claims against the State
ro" thrir value, but not in refusing tc
pay the parties from whom they pur,
CHASED thc!n. the amount.they. had
asrce;! TO pay for them before theil
emancipation. Again, with regard
10 crc.:ult Of adopting the rule con.
tcidvi iior nc says: land if suchsa
rule were adopted, in relation to .ex.
cruiory contracts for slaves. it-Moulc
| lie difficult for the Courts of Equity
10 stay their hands in executed con.
tracts i;r hem, vixen the equities fol
relief wouhl be precisely the same
except, perhaps. that the Horc grasp
ing creditor }a'l coHnprllc,! payment
by sacrificing The property Il hi,
debtor when the more in,lu!@cnt ont
had given time, as Il special favor to