The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1907-10-02
THE BOND CASE.
Decided Against fhe State Treas
urer on Last Friday.
BY A COURT EN BANc.

| The Decision of the Court Says That
the Bonds Bought in Good Faith
Must Be Exchanged for Certificates
When Offered by Those Who Hold
Them-Suits Will be Brought
Against Three State Trcasurers.
BY very close decision the judi
ary of South Carolina, sitting en-
banc, decided that the State treasurer
should issue certificates of stock for
bonds taken from the treasurer's Of
fee by a clerk after being offered for
cancellation and placed upon the
market. The decision means that
Attorney General Lyon will at once
have to commence suit against the
State treasurers who employed the
clerk in question. About $4,000 in
prip cipal and interest is at stake and
the action of the court is far reaching
and regarded as very important IN
financial circles.
Some three years ago one OF the
clerks in the State Treasurer office
was arrested charged with mlsappro-
priating State funds and bonds. 1t
was discovered that bonds offered for
cancellation and exchange for certIfl-
Gates had not been cancelled, but
again placed upon the market.
Last April one of the bonds, owned
bv Edward Ehrlich of Columbia, was
offered for exchange for certlhcate'
which is not negotiable unless en-
dorsed. The exchange was refused
by the State treasurer, on the ADVICE
of Attorney General Lyon. and IN
July the interest was refused.
Suit was at once brought, mandam-
us proceedings, to compel the state
treasurer to recognize the stock. The
supreme court being equally divided
ON the matter it was decided to call
an enbanc session of the judiciary OF
! the State, constitutional questions be-
ing involved.
Friday questions were argued be-
fore the entire court. with the eA-
ception of Judge Aldrich, who is III
and unable to attend. For the State
anpeared Attorney General Lyon and
William Thurman of Edgefeld and
Mr.. ". T. Aycock Of Columbia ap-
peared for the petitioner.
The opinion of the court IS written
by Associate Justice Jones ana IS
concurred in by Justice Woods ana
Circuit Judges Watts. Gage, Dantz-
ler Nemminger and Wilson. After
stating the facts the opinion says:
The Courts Decision.
..No marks to indicate cancesiatlon
were ever placed upon said conc d,
though the statute expressly declared
that snch surrendered bond shall I'M
mediately upon such surrender Of
cancelled and filed by the State treas,
urer with the permanent recoros o.
his Office. 1t is admitted that reia'oi
lie bona fde holder for value before
maturity and without notice. he
General rule of law is that tnle1
of personal property can not convey
~ a purchaser, however innocent
anv title to the stolen property a.
AGAINST the real owner. But IRON
the highest considerations OF puoli'
nolicy the law excepts from the run
negotiable instruments acquired II
Good faith before maturity and Win
ont notice and makes the title OF suc'
holder good against the world.
The opinion goes on to say Una
the State bond cases. II S. c. sno'
that coupon bond of the State, vail
in it's inception, is a negotlaole Sc
curity paper incurs the same respo!
sibilities which attach to lndlVloua'
or cornorations in such cases. Iher
:, is no question that the bond IN queS
tion was not valid when orlglnali
mt in circulation, and it beng ae
mitted that relator is a bona no
holder thereof at this time, his 'ltl
n can in no wise be affected by the SUI
render of the bond to the treasure
hv some antecedent holder ana lh
o subsequent theft by means OF "nlc
J. if was again put in circulation. IL
! method which the State had aoopte
to take such bond out of circulatlo
+ hy cancellation was not coHlpiis
:. With hy those intrusted by the ola
- With that duty. The direction 10 Ca
o 40, bonds was designed to pfeVe'
Il the very possibility which mas ma
oened and the failure OF the ota
;, oaicers to comply can not he treatS
~ as a circumstance of no consequent
=. ror the absence Of marks of cancell
;c ,ion make it possible for the the
70 70 nut the bond in circulation.
The Dissenting Opinion
,a The dissenting opinion is by Jt
no tice E. B. Gary. and is concurreo
IS. by Chief Justice Pope ana JUG
~ Klouch, Prince and Hydrlck.
ve After reviewing the history OF I
v. case he says that the hrst ques'i
~ is in the right of mandamus OIL
st netitioner. Bringing us the case
Iord VS.. Treasurer, the court NJ
that "mandamus will only to emo,
ministerial duty g not a q
creationary duty. The opinion u u
.,>,. saws that when bond is surrenoe'
~ and a certificate Of stock issued
exchange, it loses its legal ef1ect a
subsisting obligation OF the Sts
las Cancellation was not a condltlon ?
an cedent upon which the validity OF
nj certificate of stockk which was 10
A. issued in exchange depended
OF such requirement was required $
he nlv to prevent fraud after TRANSACT
tly hetween the holder OF the BOND
e:.y the States had terminated.
"The question: the OPINION
,irues whether the petitioner
hnna dde holder is not mlnls1e