Case Name: Emily Chandler, by John Blocker, her next friend, against William Partin
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1818-05
Citations: 2 Mill 72
Docket Number: 
Parties: Emily Chandler, by John Blocker, her next friend, against William Partin.
Judges: Colcock, Cheves, Gantt, and Johnson, J. concurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 9
Pages: 72–74

Head Matter:
Emily Chandler, by John Blocker, her next friend, against William Partin.
voluntary06 con"version is essentiai to maintain an action of tropersonan possesperty0 concedes mudL°nddse“aüp tie,pmre"bstracts wiU
This was an action of trover for a negro wo» 1 , i t • i i man and three children.
It appeared in evidence that plaintiff's father, about the year 1804, or 5, had given her the negro woman in question. Some years after, her father (or brother) sold her to the defendant, He had heard of plaintiff’s claim before he purchased, but the vender told him that it was a mere pretence, without any foundation. However, after he had got the negroes into possession, he understood that plaintiff was about to bring suit for them, and he immediately rescinded the contract. In about ten days after the purchase, and while they were in defendant’s possession, Mr. Blocker, as next friend to the plaintiff who was still a minor, made a demand of them for her. Defendant informed him that he might take them if he pleased, and pointed them out to him, but said he could not deliver them to him, for he had no control over them. He acknowledged that he had bought them, but hearing of plaintiff’s claim, he had rescinded the bargain, and had agreed to return them again to Mr. Chandler. It was also proved, that during the time the negroes were in defendant’s possession, the woman worked in his field. It further appeared, that defendant informed Blocker that he had promised Chandler to deliver the negroes to him the next day. Blocker then agreed that if he would deliver them to Chandler by twelve o’clock, he would not sue him. The next morning, Blocker went to Chandler's, where he waited until about twelve o’clock, and defendant did not come. He then went away; and in about half an hour afterwards, when the defendant was on his way to Chandler with the negroes,' he was arrested in this action. He saw Blocker again the same day, and offered to bring him the negroes, if he would wait until he could go and get them; but he would not receive them, unless he would take them to his own house. He afterwards got the negroes; and the object of this suit was to-recover the costs. The question was, whether, from the above statement, the defendant was guilty of such a conversion as entitled the plaintiff to maintain an action of trover against him ? The cause came on to be tried at Edgefield, March Term, 1807, before Mr. Justice JVbii, who was of opinion, that the action was hot supported, and instructed the Jury to that effect, who found a verdict for the defendant.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Nott.
This is a motion to set aside the verdict, and grant a new trial, for a misdirection of the presiding Judge in the Court below, on the case above stated. The question may be considered ás already settled in the case of Quay and M'-Ninch, decided during the sitting of this Court., It was determined, in that case, that to entitle a person to an action of trover, the conversion must be wrongful; and therefore where a person obtains the possession of property lawfully, and delivers it upon demand, damages cannot be recovered against him in this action for having taken it. (1 Burrow, 20, 31. Cooper and another vs. Chitty and Blackstone, 5, 2825, Ross & Johnson vs. Davidson.) In this case, the defendant did deliver the property on demand; or, what amounted to the same thing, permitted the plaintiff to take it, which waS all he could do. His whole conduct was fair and honest. He not only manifested a wish td avoid a law-suit, but was solicitous to do justice to the plaintiff It is true, that the few days he had the negroes in possession, he kept the woman at work; but not in opposition to the plaintiff's right, for he did not know that she had any. There was no foundation for the action, and this motion must be discharged.
Colcock, Cheves, Gantt, and Johnson, J. concurred.