The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1878-12-18
The Press and Banner.
Wednesday, Dec. 10, 1878.
Davenport It TX. versus Caidwci'-Ju
risGiction CT Probate Court.

TIL recent important and tar-reachlng
decision of tho Supreme Court inthc case
Of Davenport It Mr. rcrSnS Caldwell has
commanded the universal and eager at
tention Of the Bar i'll South Carolina.
Fixlga and circumscribing, as 1t has done
the jurisdiction Of the Probate Court in
matters of partition of real estate, its ten
6cncv is TO unScttlc and confuse the prac-
tice that has hitherto attained TO such All
alarming extent that immediate relief
seems to be necessary andls loudly called
for. We cannotdiscuss its merits and de-
merits Mt as great length asthc decision it
self, but we shall simply point out a few
Of the objections to the results that VIII
necessarily flow from it.
l. The jurisdiction of the Probate Court
In parti:ioning Of estate certainly was
only statutory and not constitutional eN-
cepting as to administration but use and
wont had accorded to the Probate Court
such Jurisdiction and had established it.
The machine ram we'll and smoothly and
was beneficial to all parties on account OF
its @ X pedition, economy, and convenience.
II was the favoritc Court with attorneys,
being always open and ready for work,
with the records all at hand.
.. The division of the duties hitherto
deyolving upon tho Probate Court in mat
tors OF partition, and the transtrrcncc OF
part of them to the Circuit Court, and to
Its Office, the Clerk of the Court of Com
mon Pleas, will entail new duties upon
an office never intended for such bust
ness, and On an officer who has no judi
cial power. In the matter of appointing
guardians cd Item, fer instance, h
formerly was readily and quickly done
by the Probate Judge will now have to
be put through the cumbrous and slow
working machinery of the Circuit Court
sor a Judge at chambers.
3. The sometime Court Of Ordinary had
Jurisdiction in partition of real estate to
limited extent, and these powers were in
tended to bc conferred on the Probate
Court with some engagements. This
was done by q statutory enactment by
which powers of partition were granted
in all cases except whom disputes might
arise as to the titles, and even in these
cases when disputants consented.
4. There will now be great i~nconren-
fence in searching for information as to
any estate partitioned, when part OF the
records are in ono Court and part in an
ether.
5. Tie legitimate and unavoidable re-
suits of this decision all run counter to
the prevailing tendency of all recent re-
forms in Courts of law. The genius OF
aHspch Legislation for many years and IN
all counfies has been to consolidate ana
cehtrali2e, not to weaken and scatter; to
simplify, expedite and cheaper, not to
complicate, delay and add costs.
G. It is worth while also to state that by
this decision, our Probate Judges, whose
emoluments lave recently been curtailcd
and reduced, will each lose several hun
dred dollars annually; while at the same
time the work of the Clerks Of Court will
DE greatly increased without any COM
mensurate increase Of salary.
We might add many other reasons for
adhering to the practice so long i'll vogue.
We have shown enough, however, to
prove that the recent decision will cause
great additional expense, will increase
the number OF the laws delays, will BEN
EFT nobody, but will cause everybody to
wish for d%eliverance from it's results.