The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1870-09-29
DECISIONS OF SUPREME COURT.

alexander Us. IuchenSle.-Heid tuat the
Supreme Court has Jurisdiction under Section
3s9 of the Code Of Procedure OF controversy
admitted Without action, where the quesslon
That the formal remedy In such cases under
the Code, Is an action instead OF proceeding
by ouo ,odrranto. That Article ", Section 4,
Of the Constitution OF the State, conferring on
the Supreme Court power to Issue Wrlts OF quo
loarrdntO, does not operate TO deprive Ine
Legislature OF power to abolish such Wrlts IN
form, 80 long as the remedy afforded thereby
is secured. That the constitution haTing con con-
terred on the Supreme Court original Jitrlsdic-
tion In cases OF quo ,oarra,lto, 1t can enter
tain Jurisdiction Of an action, based on grounds
that would formerly have supported the writ.
Held. that upon the election and qualifca-
ton OF municipal officers for the City OF Co
lumbia, In pursuance of the act OF February
26th. 1870 the offices OF the former lncumoents
ceased, Notwithstanding the term for which
they were originally elected mad NOT expired;
in their offices, nor vested interest under
contract, so as to deprive the Legislature OF
power TO diminish the term to which they were
originally elected; that political powers were
Inclusive to the beneficial use OF the political
community, and never to the exclusive use OF
private persons, and are movable at the Will
of the government communicating them; that
public officer has neither property nor a
vested interest under contract In the compcu-
sation attached by law to his office, beyond
what Is due to the services actually performed
by him.
Held. that although the act of February ?6.
1870, does not in terms declare the o:l.ce OF the
former incnmbents vacant upon the electlon
and qualification Of their successors, yet sucn
effect Is necessarily implied from the act, 1t be-
Ing essential to It's efficiency In accomplishing
The obvious intent OF the enactment [Opin-
lon. Willard. A. J.l
r. F. McDo,o, administrator, &C., Us. D. W.
Bropn, executor, &c.-Held, when guardians 9
account had been settled between the personal
representatives OF the guardian ana Ward,
both being deceased, and the administrator OF
The ward sought By bill to open such account.
alleging it to be incorrect and unjust, as not
embracing an account OF the administration OF
an estate OF which the ward was distributee
and the guardian administrator, and 1t appear
ed that at the time oil stating and settling
such guardians account. the complainant had
substantial knowledge OF the facts constituting
the ground of opening the account, and or
which the defendant was ignorant, and also
that the administrators account could only be
Appropriated and cOnjecturally stated 10 con-
sequence of lapse Of time and loss OF evidence,
that the account ought not 10 be disturbed.
That when stated account is settled BY pay
ment. the rights OF the parties ore concluded,
and equity will not disturb 1t unless fraud, in.
position or mistake are specifically alleged
and established.
That equity grants relief against an act or
contract resting on mistake or ignorance OF
material fact, where the mistake Is mutual, or
when il appears that an innocent party Is pre-
iu,liced thereby through mistake to some ma
terial fact, caused by trand, imposition or
breach of trust and confidence on the part Of
one against whom such relief Is sought.
That when the complainant Is charSeaole
with want OF due diligence and prudence either
in preventing the mistake, or IN seeking re-
dress therefor, relief will. be denied.
That if the settlement was compromise OF
doubtful or disputed right, or IT the parties
agreed TO assume the existence OF state OF
fucts, the court will not Interfere on the
ground Of mistake.
That when entrusted with the control or
management Of fund in confidential or
h(luciary capacity. and having, or supposed
to have. either exclusive or better lnforma.
tion of the matters OF accounts relating there
TO. than the person benehcially entitled to the
fund renders an account and it Is accepted
and settlement made upon 1t, 1t will be pre-
slmed that the settlement was made on the
faith that the account was full, lair and accu-
rate, and suctl assumption must De regarded
as entering with the consideration OF sucn
settlement
That an error in such settlement must be re-
garded as proof of either mutual mistake or
imposition on the part of the one bound TO
render the account.
That when the allegation is that The whole
of distinct account has been omitted from
the accounting, the complaint need not SCI
forth the items Of such omitted account, lot II
entitled 10 relief, it will be to open the settle
ment 0uood the omitted account, and the party
bound to render such account will be required
That il is not competent for the party seek
ipr TO establish elrors to rely on merely prob
able or conjectural evidence, but having the
oHuS proGdnti, he must establish the errors ny
clear and conclusive prouf
Circuit decree reversed and the bill dismiss
ed.-lOpinion, Willard. "A J.]