Case Name: The Bank vs. the Executors of W. W. Trapier, and others
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1834-04
Citations: 2 Hill Eq. 25
Docket Number: 
Parties: *The Bank vs. the Executors of W. W. Trapier, and others.
Judges: O’Neall and Harper, Js., concurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Equity Reports
Volume: 11
Pages: 25–26

Head Matter:
*The Bank vs. the Executors of W. W. Trapier, and others.
The Commissioner may, under the order of the Court, make sales of land lying in another district. [*25]
"W. W. Trapier lived and died a resident of Georgetown district. His executor and some of his creditors and legatees are residents of that district ; some of his creditors and legatees are resident in Charleston district. W. W. Trapier having mortgaged his plantation, the bill in this case was filed, and the proceedings were submitted to Chancellor De Saussure, by consent of parties, in May Term of the Court of Charleston, and an order was entered, also by consent of parties, that the mortgage should be foreclosed, and the mortgaged premises, sold in Georgetown in January, by James W. Gray, Esq., Commissioner in Equity for Charleston district.
A motion was made at the instance of Mr. Heriot, the Commissioner in Equity for Georgetown, before Chancellor De Saussure, to modify this order and direct the sale to be made by the Commissioner in Equity for Georgetown district, which motion was refused.
An appeal was taken from this decision, on the ground that the Act of Assembly of 1191 prescribes that the Commissioners of the several districts shall make the sales within those districts, and the consent of the suitors should not divest the relator of a privilege given him by law.
Dunlcin, for the appellant.
GrimJce, contra.

Opinion:
Johnson, J.
There does not appear to me to be any reasonable foundation for this motion. By the Act of 1191, (1 Brev. Dig. Tit. Com. of Equity, sec. 41,) the Commissioners in Equity for the several districts are required to attend the sittings of the Courts, and to take and enter down the decrees, orders and minutes thereof, &c., "and shall make all sales under the decree of the said Court." It contains no reference to the place where the property is situated or found, and I can see nothing in the nature of the service which would restrict the authority of the Commissioner to that which is found or situate in his own district. On the contrary, there are many reasons why the sales should be made by the Commissioner of the Court in which the decree is entered. The returns of the sales and the accounts must be made there, and to that *9f-i * Court its Commissioner is directly responsible for the manner in - which he has discharged his duty.
The usage of the Court, spoken of by the Chancellor, is an irresistible argument in favor of this construction; and besides that, the consent of the parties is in itself conclusive. If they, themselves, thought proper to make a private agent to sell the property, the Court could not control them in it. They, at least, would be bound by his acts, and no one else is interested, whether he acts well or ill.
The motion is therefore dismissed.
O'Neall and Harper, Js., concurred.