Case Name: Benjamin Chambers, Ordinary v. William Watson
Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1830-05
Citations: 1 Bail. 511
Docket Number: 
Parties: Benjamin Chambers, Ordinary v. William Watson.
Judges: Johnson, J. and Evans, J. concurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 17
Pages: 511–512

Head Matter:
Benjamin Chambers, Ordinary v. William Watson.
Columbia,
May, 1830
A sale of land by order of the ordinary is not void, although the price for which it sold exceed his jurisdiction, if the valuation made before the sale was within the jurisdiction.
Tried before Mr. Justice O’Neall, at York, Spring Term, 1830.
Debt on a bond for the purchase money of a tract of land, sold, for partition, by order of the ordinary, pursuant to the provisions of the act of 1824. Previous to the sale, the land r ’ had been appraised by commissioners at $1000, being the extent of the ordinary’s jurisdiction in such cases ; but at the sale, it was purchased by the defendant for $1500. He now object ed, that the value of the land having been ascertained, by the sale, to exceed the jurisdiction of the ordinary, the sale was void, and passed no title to the defendant; and therefore the consideration of the bond had failed.
Act of 1824, p. 25.
The presiding Judge was of opinion, that the valuation before the sale was the true criterion of the ordinary’s jurisdiction; and that the sale was not rendered invalid, although the price subsequently obtained exceeded the jurisdiction.
The plaintiff took a verdict, which the defendant now moved to set aside, on the ground urged in the Court below.
Williams, for the motion.
Clendenin, contra.

Opinion:
Colcock, J.
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We concur with the presiding Judge in this case. The act expressly points out the mode by which the ordinary is to determine, whether the subject of an application for partition, or sale, is within his jurisdiction, before he proceeds to exercise jurisdiction ; and it would be absurd, if his jurisdiction were to be divested by matter ex post facto. If such a construction of the act were allow ed, any evil disposed person might, with impunity, defeat the sale, by making a bid beyond the jurisdiction. The commissioners are disinterested persons, and it is not possible to conceive of any motive, which could influence them to violate their oaths and duty, merely to give the ordinary jurisdiction.
Johnson, J. and Evans, J. concurred.
Motion refused.