The Abbeville messenger. (Abbeville, S.C.) 1884-1887, 1886-03-16
Two Of a Kind.
News and Courier.]

News and Courier.
Frcauenters Of the United States
Courts in South Carolina. in the latter
days of the carpe:-bag regime, will new
er forget Major D. 4. Corbin, the pretty
Ex-United States volunteer officer,
known as multitudinous Corbin. from
the number and variety Of offices he
was wont to hold at one and the same
time nor can they fail to remember
the dapper. little, smooth-shaven law
yer, who, from the perpetual smirk
which he wore, was aptly dubbed
"lhommc qui rit," and who was the
junior editor partner and man Of all
work in the firm of Corbin & Stone.
These two worthless are called forcibly
to mind by the case Of William Stone
(of Corbin & Stone) VS.. the State Of
South Carolina, which was argued be-
fore the Supreme Court of the United
States on Friday last, Mr.. w. +. Earle
appearing for the plaintiff in error
(Stone) and Attorney General Miles
and Mr.. James Lowndcs for the defen-
dant in error tthe State Of South Caro-
lna.) The history Of this case is as
follows:
In 1874 the Hon. S. w. Melton, attor-
ney general, instituted suit in Beau
fort County against the South Carolina
Phosphate Company, Limited, known as
the Oak Point Mines, and D. Il. Corbin
and VIM. Stone, copartners, were asso-
ciatcd with the attorney general as attor-
ney and counsel for the State. Judgment
was recovered by the State against the
Oak Point Mines, in 1875, for $2a, 600,
which amount was received by Corbin
and Stone for the State.
Upon the demand Of Comptroller
General Dunn for settlement, Corbin
and Stone claimed to retain all the mon
cy received by them except $2O6,O6
l7,G46 81 as n fee in the case, and $40
COO AZ fee in the case Of Hand VS.. the
Charleston and Savannah Railroad.
After long and earnest controversy
between Dunn and Corbin, Dunn on
February 10, 1877, suddenly changed
front, abandoned the positions he had
maintained from 1876 and consented
that Corbin & Stone should retain all
they claimed. Corbin & Stone accord
ingly settled with the State by paying
to the State treasurer the sum Of $2O6-
O6, which was received in full settle.
ment.
In August 1877, Attorney General
Conner, by direction Of Comptroller
General Hagood, commenced suit against
Corbin & Stone to recover the amount
received by them for the State. except
the sum OF 1910. which had been al
lowed by the Court as fee in the Oak
Point Mines case. The defendant Stone
left the State before he could be served
with process, and subsequently filed a
petition in the State Court to remove
the case against him to the Circuit
Court Of the United States, alleging
that he was a citizen Of the State of
New York when the suit was commcnc.
ed.
Argument upon this petition was had
before Judge Shaw, but he died without
filing any decision. The defendants,
Corbin & Stone, both answered, claim
ing not only that the payment to the
treasurer Of $2O6 O6 was in full salts
faction Of the $4,000 received by them
for the Stass, but set up counter claims
against the State for $500 for profession
al services rendered at the request Of
r. B. Elliot, attorney general, and the
further sum of $18, 700 for money loan
cd to the State through r. L. Cardozo
in December, 1876. for pay of members
Of the Legislature. (This. it will be re.
membercd. was when Mr.. Corbin was
candidate for United Senator.)
In April, 1880, Attorney General You.
mans and Mr.. G. K. Miles, who had
been associated with him as counsel for
the State, moved in the Circuit Court of
tho United States to strike the case Of
Stone from the docket of that Court, as
having been inprovidently docketed.
on the ground that the Circuit Court of
the United States was without jurisdic-
ton, because the suit was brought by
tho State, and because the case was not
removable since it was not case in
which severe judgement against the
defendant Stone could be rendered.
Judge Bond heard argument, but did