Case Name: Lesesne against Russell and others
Court: South Carolina Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1795-01
Citations: 1 Bay 459
Docket Number: 
Parties: Lesesne against Russell and others.
Judges: (present, Rutledge, Ch. J. Grimke, Waties, and Bay. Justices)
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 459–460

Head Matter:
Lesesne against Russell and others.
Where com* missioners appointed to award a widow a sum in lieu of dower/ are guilty of no mal practices, or do not proceed upon erroneous principles^ their return is conclusive g although the sum awarded may appear large, kc«
IN this case a motion was made to set aside the return of the. commissioners, for having awarded to the plaintiff, a widow, an extravagant sum in lieu of her dower.
Ward, on behalf of the creditors,
objected to the return of the commissioners, because, as he alleged, they had allowed the widow much more than, by any known rule of valuation, or any principle of justice, she was entitled to. That as the land could not be conveniently divided, they had in fact allowed her as much as it was really worth in fee, and indeed more than it had since sold for at the sheriff’s sale.
Read, contra,
contended, that the act of assembly had vested this power of assessment absolutely and unconditionally in the commissioners, and that the court had no control over them, unless they had proceeded upon erroneous princi* plei, ''as they did in the case of Scott v. Scott, ) or were guiltv of "nial practices. In these cases he admitted the court had a control over them; but in every other case, their award was final and conclusive. Besides, the lands might be worth a great dea1 more than they would sell for at a sneriif’s sale whets cash was scarce ; and under such circumstances, the court could not well interfere with the widow’s claim of dower, and make the sheriff’s sale the rule pf valuation.
Poster, in the Appendix,

Opinion:
The Court
(present, Rutledge, Ch. J. Grimke, Waties, and Bay. Justices)
were unanimously of opinion, that the act of assembly gave the po wer of assessing a sum of money in lieu of dower exclusively to the commissioners, two of whom were appointed by the creditors, two by the widow, and the fifth by the court; and that they had no more power to interfere with them, unless they were guilty of mal practices, or had proceeded upon erroneous princi-pies, than they had to interfere with arbitrators, who were not guilty of misbehaviour, or who had not proceeded upon some mistake.
It was therefore ordered, that the return of the com-» missioners should be received and confirmed.