Darby v. Stribling
| Decision Date | 19 January 1885 |
| Citation | 22 S.C. 243 |
| Parties | DARBY v. STRIBLING. MURPHY v. SAME. WILEY v. SAME. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
A guardian holding a note belonging to the estates of his wards given for the purchase money of a negro slave consented in 1872 to take judgment against the makers of the note, then perfectly solvent, for one-third of the amount due, because of an agreement then prevailing among the lawyers at that bar, induced by the rulings of their presiding judge. In 1871 the Supreme Court had twice decided that such debts were collectible. Held , that the guardian was liable to account to his wards for the full amount of the note.
Before WALLACE, J., Abbeville, February, 1883.
In this case the Hon. I. D. Witherspoon, judge of the Sixth Circuit sat in the place of Mr. Justice McGowan, disqualified.
The opinion states the case. The master gave the following reasons for his findings:
In the case before us the guardian very wisely did not collect this note in Confederate money. Immediately, and for several years after the war, there was great uncertainty whether negro debts could be collected at all. Indeed, Judge Orr, as I have said, had held that they could not be. He dismissed many cases because the parties would not accept judgment for one-third of the amount. This, I take it, gave rise to the rule adopted by this bar in such cases. As Mr. Lee says in his testimony this was considered the best that could be done in the cases and was generally acted upon here. It is true that judgment was not taken in this case till more than a year after the decision in Calhoun v. Calhoun , wherein it was held that negro debts were collectible. But the case was in the hands of the guardian's attorney, and I have no doubt he acted upon his advice. Mr. Lee, who knew Mr. Willard well, says that he was a cautious man, in money matters. The manner in which he administered the estates that came into his hands negatives the idea of any mala fides on his part, for he has paid out more than he received. So that upon a review of the whole case I do not think that his estate should be held liable for the whole amount of the note.
Mr. Samuel C. Cason , for appellant.
Mr. W. H. Parker , contra.
Each of the above entitled actions involves the same questions and were heard together. On June 9, 1857, James C. Willard was appointed guardian of the plaintiffs, E. J. Darby, M. A. Murphy, and N. J. Wiley, respectively, whose maiden name was Magrath. Willard, the guardian, died August 21, 1876, without settling with his said wards. Thomas Thomson became the administrator of Willard, and he died in 1881 without a settlement with said plaintiffs. John V. Stribling, the defendant, is the administrator de bonis non of James C. Willard, the deceased guardian of said plaintiffs. These actions were instituted in September, 1882, for the purpose of requiring the defendant, as administrator de bonis non , to account for the estate of the plaintiffs, E. J. Darby, M. A. Murphy, and N. J. Wiley, that came into the hands of their deceased guardian, James C. Willard.
It appears that the estate of the said plaintiffs in the hands of their said guardian consisted of $900, the proceeds of the sale of a negro woman, sold on credit under order of court in 1860. Thomas Leroy was the purchaser of said negro and executed his note for the purchase money, with James P. Leroy and J. H. Britt as sureties. On November 16, 1872, the deceased guardian obtained judgment in the Common Pleas for Abbeville County against the sureties on said note for $306.84, the note having been...
To continue reading
Request your trial