Connolly v. Stewart

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Connolly v. Stewart

3 S.C.L. 271

DecidedMay 15, 1803

StatusPublished

This text of 3 S.C.L. 271 (Connolly v. Stewart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Connolly v. Stewart, 3 S.C.L. 271 (S.C. 1803).

Pincite

Opinion

Sed per Curiam.

(Bay, Johnson, Trezevant, and Brevard, Justices, absent, Guimke, J. and Watiks, J.)

It seems to have been the policy of the act, to require that mortgages con. ceruing real property should be recorded in one public office; and mortgages concerning personal property in another public office. The act, in making this distinction, seems to have had respect to the thing or subject mortgaged, and not to the interest or title of the mortgagor, in, or to the thing. In this case, the thing, or property mortgaged, was land. It was a house and lot in possession of the mortgagor. It appears that the mortgagor was not entitled to the absolute property : he had only a term for years in the land. But the quantity of interest, does not alter the case. [273]*273It is not the quantity of interest, but the nature of the property, whether land, or personal estate, that must decide in which office the mortgage shall be recorded.

Ward, for the motion. Cheves, contra,

Decision of the district court affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Sed per Curiam.

(Bay, Johnson, Trezevant, and Brevard, Justices, absent, Guimke, J. and Watiks, J.)

It seems to have been the policy of the act, to require that mortgages con. ceruing real property should be recorded in one public office; and mortgages concerning personal property in another public office. The act, in making this distinction, seems to have had respect to the thing or subject mortgaged, and not to the interest or title of the mortgagor, in, or to the thing. In this case, the thing, or property mortgaged, was land. It was a house and lot in possession of the mortgagor. It appears that the mortgagor was not entitled to the absolute property : he had only a term for years in the land. But the quantity of interest, does not alter the case. [273]*273It is not the quantity of interest, but the nature of the property, whether land, or personal estate, that must decide in which office the mortgage shall be recorded.

Ward, for the motion. Cheves, contra,

Decision of the district court affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 S.C.L. 271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/connolly-v-stewart-sc-1803.