The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1870-03-24
VOLUME 5---NO. 80.
Decisions Of the Supreme Court.
COLUMBIA, March

Decisions Of the Supreme Court
COLUMBIA, March, 1870.
The following cases, heard at November term,
have been decided, and the opinions fled with
the clerk of the court
Aletha Allen vs. G. L. Gailard Decision re~
versed SO far as it sustained the investment BY
the guardian in the bonds of the Gresnville and
Columbia Railroad Company, unsecured By
mortgage and affirmed in all other respects.-
Held in pursuance of the decision in Nance WI.
Nance, decided at April term, 1869, that the In
yestment being in personal securities it cannot
be sustained in the absence of special circum-
stances, establishing the necessity and prudence
of such investment and that the fact that it
was generally esteemed at the time of invest
ment a safe security is not sufficient to justify
the investment Opinion by Justice Willard
J. B. Edwards vs.. J. W. Sartor. Motion
granted, and the order sustaining the demurrer
oyerruled, cause remanded. When A and B
Joined as complainants in bill seeking to es-
tablish equitable claims to mortgage in tie
hands Of an assignee of the mortgage and to
enforce the mortgage, that they were properly
Joined as complainants, Notwithstanding their
respective claims were derived through inde-
pendent and unconnected transactions. Held,
that the parties connected with the respective
transactions under which the complainants
severally claimed an equitable interest under
the mortgage, were properly Joined with the
gage as defendants. Opinion by Chief Jug
tice Moses.
7. C. Tucker ct al. VS.. G. B. Tucker. Judg-
ment set aside and rcnire facias de nouo ordered,
where, in an action on sealed note, the de-
fence Of non est factum and also of want Of coti-
sideration and fraud, was interposed. Held,
that it was error to charge the jury that the
note was valid unless the makers mind was un-
sound, 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 bur
den of showing the consideration, and bona fdes
of the transaction. Held also, that witnesses
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 ac-
corded to experts in such cases. iOpini0n by
Chief Justice Moses. -
Simpson Bobo VS.. II. t. Goss. Judgment.
set aside and venire ordered. Held, that q note
payable "in gold six months after the present
war with the United States is ended, with in-'
terest," and "must be enforced according to
its terms; and that the terms of the ordinance.
of 1865 allowing the lien consideration of cen-
tracts to be shown in evidence, is ipapphcable
to such contract" Opinion by the Chief
Justice. =.
G. Pullin VS.. E. Suber. Judgment affirmed
Held, that when the plaintiff agreed to deliver
goods and to perform work in relation to the
same, and the goods were delivered, but the de-
fendant prevented the work from being doneby
a failure to perform the stipulations Of the con-
tract on his part, the plaintiff was entitled to
recover in the common courts. LOpinion by the
Chief Justice.
Y. Baldwin VS.. E. Cooley and others. Judg-
ment affirmed. Held, that the act of 1866,
conferring authority ON magistrates to eject
trespassers upon lands by summary process, is
not applicable as against one who entered law
fully into possession, but holds the same unlaw-
fully against acquiring title after such en-
try; also, that when magistrate assumes jurIs-
diction under such act, in a case not within Its
terms prohibition is proper remedy; also,
that Notwithstanding it is an irregularity for
the writ to issue in the name of a private per-
son, instead of it the name of the State, yet
that advantage cannot be taken of such irregu-
larity upon writ of error after judgment.
[Opinion by the Chief Justice.
]. f. Uldrich and wife vs.. w. 81. Simpson
and another. Decree affirmed and appeal dis
missed. Held, that when power to sell realty,
conferred on executors, was not executed during
the lifetime of the qualifying executor, but
was afterwards executed by the executor OF such
executor, the latter cannot set upon want of au-
thority to sell in answer to demand for an sc--
count of the proceeds of such sale. lOpinion
by Justice Willard. .t
J. A. Cretweil, Administrator, vs. ]. Boozer
Order for attachment vacated. Held, that when
the decree for the sale of real estate OF aH IN
testate reserved the question of widows night
of homestead, the proper time to determine sucn
right under the decree was On the motion to-
confirm the sale, also, that an order of attach
met against the widow for failing to deliver pos.
session to the purchaser was invalid, there hav-
ing been no order confirming the SALE lOpin-
ion by Justice Wilfsrd.l