The news and herald. (Winnsboro, S.C.) 1877-1900, 1878-12-12
CIRCUIT COURT DECISION.

The Decree Of Judge Aldrich IN tho
Case OFFS. w. Run, Sheriff VS.. a. w.
Ladd- The Liability OF Purchasers al
Public Salos.
lis Honor Judge y. =. Aldr;ch,
who presided al the last term
Of the Circut Court Cor this
county, has recently filed his decision
in the case Of $. W. Ruff. Sheriff Of
Fairfield County, VS.. a. W. Ladd. AS
the case has attracted much attention.
and rs the points involved arc Of gen
cral interest, VIC publish the decree in
full.
The facts Of The case arc these: In a
proceeding, in the Circuit Court for
Chester county, to marshal the assets
OF the estate Of the late George W.
Melton, the tract Of land mentioned in
the decree was offered for sale by the
sheriff, and bid Off by tho defendant
Ladd for $3.50. The land had been
previously mortgagcd by Melton to
the Clerk of Court for Fairfield, and
in the proceeding to marshal asscts
tho Clerk was not made Il party. On
this ground, the defendant Ladd re-
fused to comply with his bid, and The
sheriff brought his action to enforce
compliance.
The decree of Judge Adricl is as
follows:
Was this mistake, or negligence? ?
First, as to the mistake, was there II
necessity to make rhc Clerk OF the
Court Of Fairfield, who hcld this
mortgage, a parry TO tac suit in Ne
.Lu1e VS.. Melton. pending in Chester!
MIR. Mcclure says he did not Know OF
the existence Of ,he mortgage when lie
tilcdhis complaint. Ii WAS the ,clior
incumbrancc. duly recorded, to secure
the purchasc-moncy. Ii the Clerk Of
Fairfield had been made a party, or
had known of the action pending in
Chester, all that he could do, was to
exhibit his mortgage and say, 81 rely
on my specific lIcn;" for it was W, II
known that Mclton's estate was msol-
vent, and there could be neither equity
nor justice in making creditor who
had such lien surrender that which
would secure his whole debt Gas he
supposcd) to take his dividend in II
bankrupt estate. The official custodi-
an Of this mortgage had no p,rSonal
interest in it-hc was not q party in
tho Mcclure and Melton suit. His
mortgage was recorded notice to the
world. The land was thcrc-ample
security. Why should he concern
himself even if he had notice of
the Chester suit? Hc made no mis-
take. Indeed, as he was not a party
to tho action, / do not sec how he
could have intrudcd himself into the
cause.
Did tho administrator, Mcclure.
make q mistake? He says he did not
know Of tho mortgage when he insti-
tutcd his proceeding. But suppose he
did; was the Clerk of Fairfield ne
cessary party? Here is a mortgage
creditor, with a specific lien given TO
secure tho purchasc-moncy Of the
land. Why cucumber an insolvcnt
estate with the expense Of an addition
nj defendant, who has q specific lien
which he believes will secure his debt,
to come in and answer that he has 10
hope from the insolycnt estate and ro-
lios Oh his mortgage. If the facts had
been made known to tho solicitor who
filed the complaint Of Mcclure, admin
istrator, he would have said, "Thcre
is no use to burden this insolvcnt cs-
tate with additional expense by making
tho Clerk Of Fairfield aparty; he has
his mortgage-tho prior lion: $let him
rely on that" And he would have
been right. But when we come toithe