The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1870-03-25
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
The following decisions are published:

s. Morgan vs.. w. ]. Keenan,. Order sustaining
demurrer set aside and cause remanded: Held,
that the act to incorporate the Cotton Planters'
Loan Association. passed December 81, 1861, was
not invalid as tending to nil the Confederate
States in war against the United States; that its
object was to facilitate commercial dealings: anu
not TO AFFORD currency or credit In aid or the
war or OF special value in Its relation to the war,
nor WAS It intended TO evade the blockade e3tab-
shed by the United States. Held, that legsla.
tion as to internal matters, disconnected with
;he objects OF The war, by the State while In war
with the United States was valid, notwlthstand.
inc it may have tended to increase the prosperity
OF the community and thus Indirectly affect the
result OF the war. Opinion by ChIef justice.
w. A. Moorhead vs. Orr ct oil. Decree received
in part. Held that when aguardlan received tie
estate OF his wartl, and made no investment, Dut
used Ii with his own funds, anu died leaving the
trust fund in that condition, that IL was NOT CON-
petent for his administrator to separate certain
assets OF the intestate as fund Tor the payment
OF the ward, and to invest such fund In Conlcder.
ate securities, so as to discharge thc re- nlue OF
the lntestate estate in the event OF saeh invest
ment becoming worthless, Notwithstanding the
funds SO set apart BY the administrator appeared
10 have been held by the guardian as o special
fund for meeting his obligations TO his wards.
Held that the authority OF the guar'lan 10 inVest
was a pcrsonal trust and cannot arise or result
from tile right 10 administer the intestate estate
The question OF charging the lands or the guar
dian Is reserved until 1t Is ascertalned whetner
there are unsati4tied debts OF the ntestate. Opln
lon by Justice Willard. .
J. ". Williams VS.. II. Beard. Decree affirmed
and appeal dismissed. Held, that when m0rt.
rare since the act or 1913 was not recorded
within sixty days, but was recorded before SUBJ
seuuent couyeyances from the mortgager or the
same land were recorded, tnat IL was VOlh as
against the purchasers under sucn SUBSEQUENT
conyeyances they having purchased lor valna.
bic consideration and without notice. Helu that
the rule establlsed by the act OF l69S tll'lt ine
SALE conveyance, or mortgage. nrsC rccorue,i
shall he lettered, adjudged' allowed, anu neia
y
inapnlIcabIe to mortgages, since the oct OF 1888,
Notwithstanding such mortgage was recorded
priOr 10 the conveyance TO subsequent purcha-
SER though after Sixty aays. he, .a' , s.iS ot ~
fureclose his mortgage, cannot set up lliat tne
mortgager having parted win the possession OF
the morigaged lands, he is, under the act OF lIsl
to be regarded as the legal owner OF tne ianu anu
os such entitled to relief, Notwithstanding his
mortgage is invalid for want or due registry.
Opini0n by Chief Justice.
w. l.. Reilly and wife VS.. j. Whipple. Keargu-
u q Crosby. administrator, vs. D. Crosby. Ap-
penl dismissed Held that where an aimtnstra-
tor was guardian OF an inlant dlstrlputee, anu III
the final accounting rs administrator iallca 10 &C.
count for interest on annual oalances IN MS naAus
as administrator, that lie was liable therefor IN
his character as guardian, and that uitbrought
by his ward therefor was not barred uhuer tne
statute Of Limitations. the suit having oeen com
menced Jour years after the accounting Held,
that a co administrator was not necessary party
to such suit. Held. where such administrator
maintained the infant child OF hi! deceased
brother and ntestate In his own family Ior seven
Guardian of such infant. and manifested no Intent
TO charge the infant with such maintenance until
two years after becoming guardian, and did not
reduce his claim to o definite statement until
nineteen wears after the maintenance OF the In
rant cominenced that 1t must Gc presumed that
such maintenance las gratultous. Opinion by
Justice Willard. , NJ,
]. Gudn vs. the State. Motion denied. He'll,
that nm nI,icrr in making ar arrest Is only
justified in using force where such force docs not
excer,l what Is necessary; and that It Is not
sufficient Justification for an ass tnlt that was
committed I'm the course of tile discharge OF such
dnty. nor that the officer acted In good faith and
without malice, but with an intent to simply do
h,s lniv. provided the 1orcc employed wis eX-
c, ssiye Opinion by Chief Justice.