The Orangeburg news. [volume] (Orangeburg, S.C.) 1867-1875, 1874-04-11
The validity of the Re-Isecord-
u bsd ev Ing Acts eflS6G.

|oJ Lo.iOga sj1 bo,io - ozGsssoy'
The following is a careful abstract Of
the decision OF the State Supreme Court
in the case of'C. r. Miles and L. D
DeSauaaure, Trustees, Appellants, VS.
s. J.skins, g. u. Nv king. and Caleb
Sauls, Respondents, involving the ques
tion Of the yalidityTand Constitutional.
ity of the Re Recording A cts of S66.
The opinion was delivered by CHIEF
Justiee Moses tt4i , a,.
Supreme Coun, sc. NoycniJcr, Term.
1873. G. r. Miles and j.. ID. De-.
Snussure, Trustees, Appellants, We. s.
-. King, G.. P.gW. King, and Caleb
o. Sauls, Respondents Opinion by
Moses, 9. J.a~s- * -a s.a
This was the casc of mortgage for
purchase money, recorded under the act
of 1S43, but notre recorded as roouired
ny the act of 1866 !; the record, of Col.
Teton County, where the record was
made, having been destroyed during tho
war, In 1861 Hull became aycreditor AZ
OF, the n'ortsagor, s.. j. King and in
August, 1865, under u Judgment obtain,
ed by Hull against King, Sauls pur-
chased at -aloritfs sale the. land which
was the subject ofIthc suit. The Court
s;re"Assuming that the mortgage
waa executed in conformity with the
acts of lS43, the prints involved. in the
grounds. of appeal draw in question tho
validity oi the acts of 1866, l3 stat ut
large PIP. SS4-4l L, SO lar as they arc
held by the circuit dccres to affect il.
sauis presents himself in tho position of
a sutseIuent purchaser for valuable
cons dcration Without notice and i1 is
e'ror on the par, Of the appellants TO-
conteud that the mortgage having been
On rea' I'd when Hull, in 1851, became
tho credit or q! The, mo.tgayor, the tice
thus il.dily him must be- hold to extend
I" the respondent, the purchaser. There
is u" connection between thom. Tho
cquhies Between Hull, the creditor, aid
Ming, the ht"r, i'll no way, either iY
rctnal -A''''r., vr-Ly' ;,,pii5 II i'm, attac cm
t. tho purchaser Ut sheriff'sis,le. VIII,
takes his title, mt me int-ly. hui I'm.
med .ately, as Is said in MrNnisht.vs.
Gordon Rich Eq. 233 Tint case
disrnses Of the argument that tho
purchaser at shariFs sal was bound,
by the notice which the ere litor, under
whose judgment the land wassold, Lad
of the prc!exIsting mortgage when tn e
| debt due him WAS contracted. f5 l
The court then proceeds o discuss the,
question of tho validity and constitutions
ality Of the Re recording .Ao.slof 1865.
and decides in their favor, basiny its
decision upon the ground that the
eneralAssembly has right to d;vest
vested rights and to enact statutes
retrospccti,e in their action, provided
they do not impair the obligation of con
tract" Upon this point It refers to the
following cases: Suttcrly VS.. Matthew
son, 2ssPet., $50 Watson vs.. Mercer,
8 Pet, ll0; Charles River Bridge VS..
Warren Bridge, 1l4Pot., 42O; Floren.
tine VS.. Baston, 2 Wal, 2l0 jjIt,de7
clarcs that the acts Of 1866 are OF
Retrospective, and did not affect the
past; that rcsistrs ton was noA pa rt of
the contract between Tho parties to the
mortgage; and that tthc act Of il s43
contained no stipulation that involved
any prohibition ngr inst tho State to
require compliance with aay new re-.
snlations which it might impose to max e
the registration law moreapcrfoct, and
certainly none which prevented it, when,
by causes beyond it's control, the pro
visions Of the act Of 943 ceased to effect
the purpose contemplated by it, in the
way of n"tce, from supplying tie means
by which n5ticc Of the mortgage Of ap.
pellants should DO given to the public.'
actual notice on tho part Of Sauls, y
says the Court, "was not proved, and
the appellants tailed to affuri him ths
constructive notice which the law gave
them mn opportunity for imparting. In
what possible way can Sauls be said &C
hold tho attitude of spurclIaser with
notice2 And if he does not he is en
r titled to the benefit of his purchase"
= -lapaz--s b q
MEMPHIS. AND CHARLESTON RAIL