The Orangeburg news. [volume] (Orangeburg, S.C.) 1867-1875, 1874-04-11
The Validity fthe Iec-lsccord-
~ brF ing Acts ofIsG6.

| a -.a- 2tt+ 'tt tEet
The following ia careful abstract of
the decision OF the State Supreme Court
in the case of G. Il. Miles and l.. d
DeSaussure, Trustees, Appellants, vs.
S. j. King, q. L. w. King, and Caleb
Sauls, Respondents, involving the ques
ton Of the validity and Constitutional.
ity of the Re Recording A cts of 1866
The opinion was delivered by CHEZ
Justice Noses
Supreme Court, C. Noocmbcr Term
1873 c. r. Miles and l.. ID. De.
Snussure, Trustees, Appellants, VS.. s.
j. King, c. p. W. King, and Caleb
Sauls, Respondents Opinion by
| Moses, g. j.
/ This was the case of a mortgage for
purchase money. recorded under the act
of 1913, but notrc recorded as REQUIRED
by the act Of 1866; the records of Col
Teton County. where the record was
made, having been destroyed during the
war. In 1851 Hull became aycrcdito.
OF the mortsagor, s. j King and in
August, 1868, under ajudgmont obtain
cd by Hull against King, Saals pur.
chased at slIeritf's sale tho land which
was the subject of the suit. The Court
says: Assuming that the mortgage
waa executed in conformity with the
acts OF lS43, the prints involved in the
grounds Of appeal draw in question the
validity oi the act, of 1866, Is stat at
large, PIP. 3S4-4ll, SO lar as they are
held by the circuit dccres to affect it.
Sauis presents himself in tho position of
a subsequent purchaser for valuable
cons dcsat"n Without notice and it is
error on the part OF the appellants TO
contend that the mortgage having been
On leo' I'd when Hull in 1861, became
the creditor o.: tn. no..ga,or, the ,tice
thus biz di's him must be hold to extend
I" the respondent, the purchaser. There
Is u" connection between them. The
equities Between Hull, the credit ,r, aid
Ming, the htnr, i'll no way, either in
pctu,l H''ap', vr- -Uy i,tpii,; u ion atta:M
t" the purchascr 1T sheritf's sale, VIII,
takes HI, title, MT me i,at~Iy hutim.
med atcly, Az is said in MrKninht va
Gorlnn Rich. E1. 23:' Th,t case
disrnses of the argument that the
| purchaser at shrriff's sal was bound
by the notice which the ere !itor. under
whose Judgment the land wassold lad
OF the prc-rXIsting mortgage when the
debt due him WAS contracted.
The court then proceeds to discuss the
question Of tho validity and constitutions
atty OF the ise recording ic.s OF lS6S,
and decides III their favor, basin. its
decision upon the ground that the
General Assembly has right to dvest
vested rights, and to enact statutes
retrospccti, Q in their action, provided
they do not impair the obi CATION of con
tract Upon this point It refers to the
following cases Snttcrly VS.. Matthew.
son. 2 Pet, $50 Watson VS.. Mercer,
s Pct, 10; Charles River Bridge VS..
Warren Bridge, IL Pet, 42O; Florsu.
tine VS.. Baston, 2 Wal, 2lO. tide.
clarcs that the acts Of 1866 are OF
retrospective, and did not affect the
past; that registration was no. part OF
the contract between tho parties 10 the
mortgage; and that ''thc act Of 1913
contained no stipulation that involved
any prohibition agr inst the State to
require compliance with any new re-.
anlations which it might impose to max e
the registration law more perfect, and
certainly none with prevented it, when.
by causes beyond its control, the pro .
visions Of the act Of 9l3 ceased to effec,
the purpose contemplated by it, in the
way of n"tice, from supplying the uea us
by which noticc Of the mortgage Of ap,
pclIan:s should DO given to the public.''
"Actual notice on the part of Sauls. "
says the Court, "was not proved, and
the appellants tailed to affnri him tbf
constructive notice which the law gave
them an opportunity for inparting In
what possible way can Sauls be said tc
hold tho attitude of purchnser with
notice! And if he does not he is en-
titled to the benefit of his purchase"
MEMPHIS AND CHARLESTON RAI.
HOAD--It vyaa rtotad ~ a