Case Name: John Bone et alii, against Ebenezer Hillen
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1817-05
Citations: 1 Mill 197
Docket Number: 
Parties: John Bone et alii, against Ebenezer Hillen.
Judges: The other Judges concurred,
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 8
Pages: 197–199

Head Matter:
John Bone et alii, against Ebenezer Hillen.
Charleston,
May, 1817.
A person who takes up a raft of boards, found floating adrift on one of the rivers, is entitled to hold it against all the world except the original owner, and may maintain an action for it.
This case was tried before Jdr. Justice Mott, at Georgetown, in November Term, 1811.
The plaintiffs, in this case, had taken up a raft <of boards, which they found afloat on the Pedee River. They carried it to Georgetown, where they delivered it to the defendant, and took from him the following receipt: . .
“Received,Georgetown, March46th, 1810,of John Bone, James Bone, Junr., and William Bow, ^one raft of boards, said to bé taken up adrift near the month of Little Pedee, which raft I promise to account for to the owner, obtaining -and proving said raft, or to the said John Bone, and others.’*
The defendant kept the raft a considerable time, and no owner appearing, he sold it. The plaintiffs then claimed the money, and made a demand of it, but the defendant refused to pay _.them. This action was then commenced. When it was called for trial, a motion was made by the defendant to postpone it, on account of the absence of a witness. The defendant had not subpoened his witness, but had-relied on his promise. It was not pretended that he was sick, or otherwise prevented from attending. The motion was therefore overruled.
aifsptortaubpffl2¡ pcnrfbiK10™ MÍ 1?°"01’ thecT¡Íl «on-SdSce of such witness.
it was then contended that the plaintiffs had no right to the property, and therefore were not ^titled to receive the proceeds of the sale. presiding Judge, however, instructed the Jury that they were entitled to recover, and they found a verdict accordingly.
A motion was then made for a new trial.
First. Because the presiding Judge refused to continue the cause, on the grounds of an absent witness.
Second. Because the plaintiffs had no right to tie property, &c.

Opinion:
Nott, J.
delivered the opinion of the Court.
It is necessary, for the prompt and speedy administration of justice, that every person concerned should use due diligence to be ready for tiial. For that purpose the law affords every suitor a process of the Court to compel the at-tendance of his witnesses. And it requires every person, asking for a continuance of his cause, to t n i i swear that he has used all legal means to enforce their attendance, before his application shall be granted. And, upon his showing to the Court, that he has done every thing in his power to be prepared for trial, he will have further time, and further process granted him, to compel the attendance of his witnesses. But that indulgence will not be allowed to one who has not used the diligence which the law requires. If he relies on the promise of a witness, and is deceived, he must take. ihe consequences, vigilantibus non dormientibus leges subserviunt. The motion in this case was properly overruled.
Richardson, for the motion.
_ _ > Second. The plaintiffs, having obtained possession of the property, honestly, and legally, were entitled to hold it against all the world, except the right owner; and as no better owner had appeared, it was fair to presume there was none. If the defendant had taken it tortuously, the plaintiffs could have maintained an action against liim for the value of it. If they chose to part with it, they had a right to make their own terms. If the defendant was willing to stipulate to perform what the law would have required of him if there had been no contract, this Court will enforce it.
Motion for a new trial refused.
The other Judges concurred,