Case Name: Adm'rs. of Joseph Howard vs. Alex. Aiken
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1826-05
Citations: 3 McCord 467
Docket Number: 
Parties: Adm’rs. of Joseph Howard vs. Alex. Aiken.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 14
Pages: 467–469

Head Matter:
Adm’rs. of Joseph Howard vs. Alex. Aiken.
Where justice has been done by the verdict of the jury, the court will not grant a new trial
A trustee cannot acquire a title by the statute of limitations against his cestuique trust.
Tried before Judge Richardson, at Union Spring Term, 1826.
It appeared in evidence, that William Porter in his life time made a deed for a few acres oí land to plaintiffs’ intestate, as trustee for a certain Baptist congregation in Union district. He afterwards executed a bond to the same person, with a condition to make titles to him in his own right to the whole tract of land, embracing the part which had been previously conveyed in trust. The titles were never made; but the plaintiffs’ testator continued in possession until he acquired a possessory title. He then sold the land to the defendant who was ignorant of the trust deed. This was an action for the purchase money. The defendant contended that the plaintiffs’ intestate had no title to the land conveyed to him in trust for the Baptist Congregation, and therefore he 'was entitled to a deduction for the value of that land. And that was the only question submitted to the court.
The jury found a verdict for the defendant, and this was a motion for a new trial, on the ground, that the verdict was contrary to law and evidence.

Opinion:
IS ott, J.
That such a congregation actually exists, as is described in the deed, that it has occupied the land so conveyed from the time of the conveyance, and is still in the enjoyment of it, is admitted. But it is contended, that it has not been incorporated and therefore has no legal existence.
Whether it is incorporated or not we do not know, as there does not appear to have been any evidence on that point. The plaintiffs' intestate however accepted the deed in character of trustee. He therefore admitted the fact, and thereby dispensed with the necessity of further proof on the part of the defendant. He could not acquire a title by possession to land which he held as trustee. And having no title himself, he could convey none to the defendant.
It is however further contended, that, as trustee, the legal title was in him; and that the defendant is not entitled to relief in a court of law. Without going into the enquiry how far a court of law will take notice of a trust in such a case, it is sufficient that we can see that a court of equity would give relief. The jury therefore have decided according to the justice of the case. And this court do not feel bound to aid'the plaintiffs, in the sacrilegious act which they $re attempting to commit. We will not grant a new trial, for the purpose of driving the parties into another court, when we see that justice has been done.
Herndon, for the motion.
Thomson, contra.