Case Name: Bruton, admr. vs. N. R. Cannon, fi. fa.; Howell vs. same, fi. fa.; Curry, admr. vs. same, fi. fa.; Allen, vs. same, fi. fa.
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1824-11
Citations: 1 Harp. 389
Docket Number: 
Parties: Bruton, admr. vs. N. R. Cannon, fi. fa.; Howell vs. same, fi. fa.; Curry, admr. vs. same, fi. fa.; Allen, vs. same, fi. fa.
Judges: Colcock, Richardson, Huger, .and Johnson, Justices,, concurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 16
Pages: 389–389

Head Matter:
Bruton, admr. vs. N. R. Cannon, fi. fa.; Howell vs. same, fi. fa.; Curry, admr. vs. same, fi. fa.; Allen, vs. same, fi. fa.
On a rule against the sheriff' to shew -cause why he had not made the monies on certain executions, he returned that before the lodging of the executions, defendant had mortgaged certain slaves to one R. but that the mortgage was not recorded; that the slaves had been sold by him (the sheriff) and that the money was in his hands, to be paid to ike satisfaction of the mortgage or the executions, as the court might direct: Rule, dis charged and parties left to contest their tights at law.
Tins was a rule against Edmond Pooser, esq. sheriff of Orangeburgh district, to shew cause why he had not made the money, under the executions in the above cases..
The sheriff’ shewed for cause that certain negroes, once the property of the defendant Cannon, had been mortgaged by him to Joseph Robinson, on his becoming security for Cannon to one Williamson, at a period antecedent to the lodging of the executions in the above cases. That the mortgage had not been recorded, but that the negroes had been sold by him and the amount of sale was in bis hands, to .be paid over either to the satisfaction of the mortgage or to the executions, as might be decided by the court.
The presiding.judge ruled that- the mortgagee was entitled to the money, but recommended that the question should be brought up to the constitutional court.
Gantt, and Trotti, for motion.
-, contra.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Gantt.
The rule should have been discharged and the parties left to contest their rights at law, winch is accordingly ordered by this court.
Colcock, Richardson, Huger, .and Johnson, Justices,, concurred.