The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1869-06-01
sense OF duty or no.. You can weigh the
whole evidence and determine that matter for

| yourselves.
The only remaining roint upon which it is
proper to instruct you is this:
1t is claimed by counsel that IL, in the event
you should find for the plaintiff, you may as
Court cannot say that to you. If you find for
the plaintiff it will be Your duty to assess the
value Of the property at tho time Of the con-
version, on the 21st of October, 1856, with law
full interest from that date.
In response to a request from the counsel
for the plaintiff, the Chief Justice added:
II there is anything in the evidence which
satisfies you that the defendant acted without
any color OF law-wilfully and in fragrant disre.
gard OF his duty-then you have right to as
say whether there is anything Of that sort in
| the proof f 't.b
The jury retired and soon after returned
with the following verdict
"We find for the plaintiff $11 700 90 cents.
VIM. Ravenel, Foreman"
We learnthat motion will be made to set
aside the above verdict.
Edwin Parsons ct al VS.. Southwestern Rail
road Bank. Case continued.
r. l.. Livingston vs. w. Jordan. Porter and
Conner for plaintiff; Simonton & Barker for
defendant. This was an action OF trespass, to
try title and to recover tract OF land, in Ker-
shaw County, known as the Wateree pIanta-
ton, belonging to Mary 8. McRae and Julia
N[cRae, residents of Baltimore. It was alleged
| that the plantation was sold during the late
war, without their knowledge or consent,
under decree of the Court of Equity. The
title was given to D. G.. Robertson, and part of
the money paid in Confederate currency. When
the young ladies came to take charge they
found the plantation disposed of, without their
having received o dollar. They brought this
action on the ground that no one in the Con-
federacy had right to act or bind them to
their action ; that the title passed by the
Court Of Equity was illegal, and having receiv-
ed nothing for their property and having been
dispossessed Of il Illegally, they are entitled to
recover.
On the part Of the defence it was shown that
the sale of the plantation was in pursuance
of a contract made between the purchaser and
Hon. f. j. Moses, agent for the parties at the
time. The contract was made between Mr.. d.
G. Robertson and Hon. F. J. Moses. Robert
son paid his money part cash. One or both
| OF the young ladies, it was represented, were
| infants. 1t was necessary to make good the
title, and as, carly as 1851 the parties went
into court Of equity. The young ladies we're
not only represented by counsel, but by pro-
chain ANA, the next friend, their own step
father. The proceedings were conducted With
his consent, and closed under his instructions.
and the position they took was that ina smuch
as the proceedings were authorized by their
next friend, and were conducted by eminent
counsel for the infants, the title passed from
the Commissioner in Equity to Mr.. Robertson,
who afterwards sold to Mr.. Jordan; thatswhat-
ever may have been done with the money \ that
is a question between the McReas and their
| friends. iSsst 'Hlahs
number of witnesses were examined iii the
case. among whom was Chief Justice Moses.
who acted as counsel for the parents OF the
plaintiffs.
The Chief Justice charged the Jury as fol-
lows: ,s.
Gentlemen Of the Juvy-This is an action
trespass upon the case to try title There is
| very Little in it for you to pass upon The
question a. OF fact lies within very narrow COM
pass. Ihe only question OF Importance in the
case is q question of law.
1t is very clear that this contract made bs-
tween MIR. Moses and Mr.. Robertson did not
bind the plaintiffs. It was contract without
to intervene as volunteer for minor child
and make contract for the sale Of minors
estate. This is so clear that it needs no argu-
person does interviews and maks q 'suca is oooS coss
tract. 1t may become Binding BY subsequent as
cent OF the parties on arriving at fufl age. or
Though proper proceedings In courtaof
equity
There Ia no allegation in this case, that We
have heard, OF any such subsequent consent OF
these pargies: You have heard the testimony
there was no intercourse between him and
these minor children in relation TO this con.
tract. II was made solely at the instance Of
their mother and stepfather. 80 far - their
the case. The next question is whether there
ls any jurisdiction In Court OF Equity of the
State Of South Carolinato mako decree con-
nors estate. Upon that point we entertain ter ain
very serious doubts. Undoubtedly an infant
may bring suit by next friend In Court Of
Equity; and the court has Jurisdiction In such
sell the estate Of the infant. There is no ques
tion upon that point. In this case however,
the suit was brought BY the stepfather, rep
but he himself resides in Maryland, beyond
the jurisdiction Of the court in which the suit
was brought. Though represented as the
guardian OF the minors. be was not such in
one, under the laws Of Maryland, for more than
two years, and of the other for nearly two '-T
And one OF the heirs became. Of age, accord
ing e. 70 me the laws .a OF South Carohna. Within four
long before the final decretaI order, under
which the defendant claims title; and neither
was ever brought formally into court.
Aswe have already said, we doubt upon the
question Of jurisdiction; but for the purposes
Of this case will rule that Jurisdiction to con-
tirn this contract made in behalf Of the minors.
or to pass the fnai decretal order under which
the title was conveyed, did not exist. The de-
fendant, il dissatisfied. may move in arrest Of
| judgment, or for . new trial.
Under this ruling. gentlemen, your verdict
must be for the plaintiff; for, If there was no
Jurisdiction In the court, the defendant cannot
protect himself by its decree.
tt is proper to say, further, that although We
put this as case, for The present, upon tie abb
| tirm Or order the sale, there is another objec-
ton to the defendants te.e equally fatal.
The jurisdiction OF the State Court over the
plaintiffs, Whatever it was, termirated when
the civil war broke out. Upon that point We
entertain no doubt. As between parties re-
siding in the State OF South Carolina and par
ties residing in the States which adhered to Che
National Government. between whom waf
made intercourse impossible. there could be
no lurisdlctlon In the Courts Of south Caroli-
ma, while the war continued, by which the
| affected. I@TG 5
| This r1,lno inIoa5 onr1;n.s