CR. aia^ i Q5(D) 
 4SS0 
 
 Duke University Libraries 
 Benjamin Huger 
 Conf Pam #550 
 
IN EQUITY. 
 
 CHARLESTON DISTRICT. 
 
 BENJAMIN HUGER READ. 
 
 Executor J. Harlestox Kkap, et al, 
 
 ads. ^ 
 
 J. HAKLESTON READ, 
 
 ADMINISTRATOR. 
 
 • 
 
 JAMES SIMOxVS, \ 
 
 Complainant's Solicitor. 
 
 DeSAUSSURE & SOX, and 
 MExMMINGER, JBflVEY & WILKINSON, 
 
 Solicitors for B. II. Read, Executor. 
 
 NELSON MITCHELL, 
 
 Solicitor for Capt. Maffit and family. 
 
 CHARLESTON : 
 
 STi: AM- I'O WKU PKKS.SES OF EVANS Sc C O G S W K I, I. 
 No. ?, Broad .-iii'l 103 East D.iy Street. 
 
 ISGl. 
 
*» 
 
 p^ ■ 
 
 ^550 
 
 s 
 
 "?♦ 
 
 ^" 
 
SOUTH CAROLINA-CHARLESTON DISTRICT. 
 
 Benjamin H. Rkad, 
 Ex'or J. IIarleston Read, eta]., \ t r- •. 
 ads. 'rL^hqmt^. 
 
 J. IIarleston Read, Adm'r. J 
 
 GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 
 By Benjamin H. Read Executor J. IIarleston Read. 
 
 1. That his Honor the presiding Chanoc]h)r erred in 
 decreeing that the decedent, J. IIarleston Read, became 
 trustee, under the deed of marriage settlement, for himself 
 and his children. 
 
 2. That his Ilonor the presiding Chancellor erred in 
 decreeing an account against the estate of the decedent J. 
 IIarleston Read, when, by the decree, it is declared that the 
 said J. Harleston Read, and his co-heirs, the children of the 
 marriage, became jointly "bound to execute the trusts 
 which the property had been subjected to by the <leed of 
 July 18th, 1811." ^ 
 
 3. That his Ilonor the presiding Chancellor erred in 
 decreeing tliat the long and exclusive possession by the 
 decedent, J. IIarleston Read, was not an ouster, when by the 
 decree it is declared tliat the decedent and his co-heirs were 
 jointly bound to execute the trust. 
 
 4. That the co-heirs, being jointly interested in the usu- 
 fruct with the decedent, were ousted by his occupancy and 
 enjoyment, and his Honor the presiding Chancellbr errell 
 ia not so decreein(j. 
 
5. Thii; his Honor tlie |)residiiig Chancelror erred in 
 decreeing that the chiini of the deceased, James "Withers 
 Kead, was not barred bvthe anak^gy of the Statute of Limi- 
 tations, and his administrator not debarred from making 
 claim for an account by reason of the staleuess of the 
 same. 
 
 6. That his Honor the presiding ChanceHor erred in 
 deereeina; that the deceased cliiUh'en of the marria<>:e are 
 entitled to an account, after so great lapse of time since 
 their respective deaths in minority, and when the law pre- 
 sumes a settlement of their estates by lapse of time. 
 
 7. That his Honor the presiding Chancellor erred in 
 decreeing that the confession of judgment by the com- 
 plainants, decedent J. Withers Read, to the defendants, de- 
 cedent J. Harleston Read, was not a full presumptive evi- 
 dence of a settlement of all accounts between them up to 
 such time. 
 
 8. That his Honor the presiding Chancellor erred in 
 decreeing that the legacy, under the will of the decedent J. 
 Harleston Read, to his grandchildren, John Laurens Read 
 and Mary Withers Read, presented neither a case of elec- 
 
 t tion nor one of satisfaction. • 
 
 9. That his Honor the presiding Chancellor erred in not 
 decreeing that the complainants, decedent J. Withers Read, 
 should, under all the circumstances of this case, including 
 therein his maintenance until majority and the advances 
 subsequently made to and for him by the defendants, dece- 
 dent J. Harleston Read, and evinced by J. Withers Read's 
 confession of judgment, be presumed to have no claim for 
 any account anterior to the date of such confession of 
 judgment. 
 
 DeSAUSSURE & SOI^, 
 
 SoVrs Benjamin H. Read. 
 
p6Rmalipe« 
 
 pH8.5