
    Columbia, November Term, 1814.
    David Spears vs. John Terry.
    Farrow, for the Motion,
    
    )> Cues well, Contra.
    
    This was an action of trespass to try title. The land was sold under execution by the sheriff of Spar-tanburgh, as the property of Thomas Leatherwood, and bought by the plaintiff. The defence set Up, was, that Leatherwood had surrendered Up all his property, of which this land was a part; and assigned it over to trustees for the benefit of his creditors, according to the provisions of the act for the relief of insolvent debtors. This assignment had been made pursuant to the order of the commissioners of special bail, to whom the surrender had been made.
    Commissioners of bail have power to admit persons to the benefit of the prison bounds act but not of the insolvent debt' or’s act.
    The presiding judge, (Smith J was of opinion, that commissioners of special bail, had no power to sarry that act into effect; and that the title derived under them, was void, and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover. The jury found a verdict accord- . J J
    
    1110tion is now made for a new trial, on the. ground that the judge was mistaken in the law in that respect, and had mis-directed the jury.
   Nott, J.

I am of opinion that the verdict ought not to be set aside. The commissioners have clearly mistaken their powers. They are authorised to admit persons to the benefit of the prison bound’s act; but they have nothing to do with the insolvent debt- or’s act. This motion, therefore, must be discharged.

Justices Bay, Smith, Giümke and Colcock coil-eurred.

Brevard, J.

Under the act of Assembly, of 1788, I think commissioners of special bail, (or one commissioner,) may order an assignment of an insolvent debtor’s estate, or any part thereof; and that such assignment, if properly made, is sufficient tó eonvey real estate. In the present case, however, it appears the act was not duly conformed to. There seems to be great informality, and want of certainty in the proceedings. It does not clearly appear by what authority, or in what character, the three persons acted, who style themselves i( commissioners.” The assignment is not under seal. The word u assignment,” must be taken in a legal, and technical sense, to mean a deed or grant. The assignment does not pursue the directions of the act. It is for the mutual benefit of all the creditors;” whereas the act directs it (i to be made to the plaintiff, subject to all prior incumbrances.”

I am of Opinión that the district court acted cor- ‘ rectly, in rejecting the writing offered as an assignment ; and that the motion for a new trial ought to he refused.  