The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1870-03-15
THE SUPREME COURT.
Recent Decisions.
COLUMBIA, March, 1870

COLUMBIA, March, 1870
The following cases, heard at November
term, have been decided, and the opinions
filed with the clerk of the court:
Aletha Allen VS.. G. l.. Gaillard. Decision
reversed so far as it sustained the investments
by the guardian in the bonds of the Greenville
and Columbia Railroad Company. unsecured
by mortgage and affirmed in all other respects.
Held in pursuance of the decision In Nance VS..
Nance, decided at April term, 1869, that the In
vestment being in personal securities IL cannon
be sustained in the absence OF special clrcunl-
stances, establishing the necessity and prl-
Gence Of such investment; and that the fact
that it was generally esteemed at the time OF
investment safe security Is not sufficient
to Justify the Investment [Opinion by Justice
willard ,,.,--
granted, and the order sustaining the demur,
.,saE overruled, cause remanded. Wnen A anu
A.51oined as complaiuants in bill seeking 10
establish equitable claims to mortgage in the
hands of an assignee of the mortgagee and to
enforce the mortgage, that they were properly
Joined as complainants, notwithstanding their
resnective claims were derived through indie
pendent and I'm connected transactions. Held,
that the parties connected with the respective
transactions under which the complainants
scverally claimed an equitable Interest under
the mortgage, were properly joined with the
parties, requisite to foreclosure of the mort
gage as defendants. [Opinion by Chief JUS
tice Moses.]
T. C. Tucker ct al. vs.. G. B. Tucker. Judg-
ment set aside and reniTc fdctdS de n0uo Or
dered. where, in an action on sealed mole,
the defence of non est tdctun, and also Of want
of consideration and fraud, was interposed.
Held. that it was error to charge the jury that
the note was valid unless the makers mind
was unsound, there being evidence that should
have gone to the jury on the question OF fraud
and want OF consideration. Held, also, that
the fact that the note was given by principal
to her agent in the course of their dealing in
that relation does not cast upon the agent the
burden of showing the consideration, and bona
fdcs of the transaction. Held, also, that Wit
nesses to note are not entitled TO express
opinions in regard to the mental condition, as
to soundness Of the maker, they not having
the privilege accorded to experts IN sucn cases
TOpinon by Chief Justice Moses.]
Simpson Bobo VS.. H. L. coss. Judgment
set aside and uenire ordered. Held, that note
payable sin gold six months after the present
war with the United States is ended, with In
terest," and ''must be enforced according to
iis terms: and that the terms of the ordinance
NJ nf1sG5 allowing the lien consideration of CON
tracts to be shown in evidence, is inapplicabe
to such a contract" [0pinion BY the CHIEF
q Pullin VS.. E. Suber. Judgment affirmed.
Held, that when the plaintiff agreed to deliver
noods and to perform work In relation 10 tae
same. and the goods were delivered, but the
defendant d prevented the work from being done
bv a failure to perform the stipulations Of the
Contract on his part, the plaintiff was entitled
to recover in the common courts. lOpinlon by
the Chief Justice. ,,a
v. Baldwin VS.. E. Cooley and others. Jndg-
ment affirmed. Held, that the act OF le66,
conterrinr authority on magistrates to eject
tsespassers upon lands by summary process, Is
not apptfable as against one who entered law
filly into possession, but holds the same unlaw-
flIy as AGAINST one acquiring title after such en-
lry; also, that when magistrate assumes !or!s-