George Washington Flowers 
 Memorial Collection 
 
 DUKE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 
 
 ESTABLISHED BY THE 
 
 FAMILY OF 
 
 COLONEL FLOWERS 
 
IN EQUITY. 
 
 CHARLESTON DISTRICT, 
 
 • WILLIAM RAVENEL. anj) others, 
 
 EXECrroils OF THOMAS BENNF.TT LUCAS. 
 VS. . 
 
 (MR8. MARY CATHARINE LUCAS, 
 
 AND OTHERS. 
 
 Bill for Account and Settlement of Estate. 
 
 BEFORE. MR. TUPPER, MASTER. 
 
 PETIGRU & KING, 
 
 MEMMINGER, JERYEY & WILKINSON, 
 
 SoUcltorii for Plaintiff-'^. 
 
 NELSON MITCHELL, BROWN &, PORTER, 
 
 MACBETFI & BUIST, W HALEY & LORD, 
 
 SLMONS & SIMONS, .TAMES B. CAMPBELL. 
 
 McCRADY & SON, WILLIAM WHALEY, 
 HAYNE & MILES, Solicitors for Defendants. 
 
 "•■p 
 
 CHARLESTON 
 
 STEAM-POWER PRESSES OF EVANS It COOS WK LI, 
 
 Xos. 3 Broad and 103 East Bay Streets. 
 
 1861. 
 

IN EQUITY-CHARLESTON. 
 
 WILLIAM RAVENEL, d al, Executors of THOMAS 
 BENKETT LUCAS, 
 
 vs. 
 MARY OATHERIXE LUCAS, et al. 
 
 Report of JAMES TIPPER, Master in Equity. 
 
 To the honorable the Chancellors : 
 
 On the 7th March, 1860, I submitted a report upon the 
 evidence which had been taken in this case up to that 
 time. 
 
 On the 16th !N^overaber, 1860, an order was made by 
 Chancellor Carroll, recommitting the said report, witli in- 
 structions to the Master " to take the accounts of the exec- 
 utors and report thereon ; and also as to the claim of the 
 widow to dower, and of the other parties in interest before 
 the Court." And on the 8th February, 1861, it being then 
 suggested that such an account could not be properly taken 
 without making the creditors parties according to the course 
 of this Court, it was ordered, by Chancellor Dunkin, that 
 the Master "give notice in the public gazettes of Charles- 
 ton to the creditors of the said Thomas Bennett Lucas to 
 prove their demands before him on or before the Ist day 
 of April, 1861 ; and that, in case of their failure to come 
 
ill and prove their i^aid deinaiuls, they be excluded from 
 the benefit of the decree in this case." 
 
 The accounts of the executors have been submitted and 
 examined. Xo objection has been made to them. They 
 are herewitli file.d as Exhibit A. The casli balance in the 
 executors' hands on the 19th May, 18G1, when the accounts 
 were closed, was $1)0,510 31. In addition to this sum, 
 there is to the credit of the executors, in tlic Savings In- 
 stitution of this city, the following amounts : 
 
 Deposited by them on the 12th Dec, IHoti $ 4,500 
 
 And on the 29th March, 18G0 20,500 
 
 In all $25,000 
 
 These deposits, it is understood, were made to meet the 
 claim of the widow to dower. The scheme of tliis report, 
 however, requires that the aliove deposits be not separated 
 from the general assets of the* estate. I have, therefore, 
 added them to the balance of $90,510 31, admitted by the 
 executors' accounts to be in their hands, which makes the 
 cash $11^,510 31. The executors also hold bonds due to 
 the estate of their testator for $18,140, and simple contract 
 demands against sundry delators of the estate for $11,(381 
 06. These assets are reiiresented to be good, and with one 
 exception, viz: a claim on open account against James B. 
 Campl)ell, Esquire, for $2,494 42, are supposed to be avail- 
 able for the payment of the debts of the estate. To the 
 claim against Mr. Campbell a discount has been set oft' and 
 established by proof for an amount which exceeds by $161 
 31 the claim of the estate against him, Mr. Canqobell 
 claims other demands against the estate of Lucas, but of 
 these no proof has been furnished. Erom the schedule 
 of the assets of the estate, I have deducted the claim 
 against Mr. Campbell, and })laced the balance in his favor 
 among the debts on simple contract due by the estate. 
 The true sum of the cash and uncollected assets thus ascer- 
 tained is found to be $142,836 95, as appears by Exhibit B. 
 Pursuant to the order of the 8th Eebruary, 1861, notice 
 was given, for four weeks, in the daily morning papers of 
 
Cc/nJ. 
 
 the city, to the creditors of the hate Thomas Bennett Lucas, 
 to come in and prove their demands before the 1st day of 
 April, 1861, or failing to do so that they would be excluded 
 from the benefit ot the decree to be made in this cause. 
 Under this order a large number of claims has been pre- 
 sented. Many of these claims were not disputed, and hav- 
 ing been proved in tlie usual way are allowed. Upon 
 others, questions are raised which require tlie adjudication 
 of the Court l)efore a final settlement of the estate can be 
 etiected. 
 
 1. The first claim of this kind is upon a joint and several 
 bond of J. B. Campbell aud Thomas Bmnett Lucas, dated the 
 20th January, 1858, and conditioned for the payment to 
 William AVhaley, administrator of Dr. G. W. Morris, of 
 $3,500, in five equal successive annual instalments, with 
 interest from date, payable annually. The interest has 
 been paid to the 1st March, 1859. The evidence taken 
 upon this claim is, that the " bond was given for the pur- 
 chase money of ten slaves, bought by Mr. Campbell from 
 the estate of George W. Morris. That the bond was 
 secured by a mortgage of the slaves, and b\' the personal 
 security of T. B. Lucas, as a joint obligor of the bond. 
 Mr. Campbell is in possession of the negroes." The 
 obligee insists upon his legal right to come in as a bond 
 creditor of Thomas Bennett Lucas, and receive payment 
 out of his estate. The w^ell-established doctrine of this 
 Court is, that the surety is entitled to the benefit of all the 
 securities which the creditor obtains from the debtor for 
 the payment of the debt, and that the creditor must exhaust 
 these before he can come on the surety for payment. It 
 does not appear from anything before me that the mort- 
 gaged property is insutficient to pay the debt in full. The 
 sum of the bond for principal and interest is $4,030 12, 
 and a mortgage of ten slaves would seem to be ample secu- 
 rity for a debt of that amount. But this may not be the 
 case at this particular time. The obligee of the bond is 
 clearly entitled to rank as a specialty creditor of the estate 
 
of T. B. Lucas, to the extent of any deficiency in the mort- 
 o^age security to meet his ileniand in full, and I so find. 
 
 2. The second claim is made on behalf of the holders ot 
 sundry Bills of Ex<-haiun\ drawn by Tluuiias Bennett Lucas, 
 on Thomas Scott and Wilbur k Price, of Xew York, and 
 accepted by them. The bills are under protest in the hands 
 of certain banks and citizens of this State, who claim, as 
 holders of said protested bills, to rank as specialty creditors 
 in the distribution of Mr. Lucas' estate. This claim is 
 founded upon the A. A., 178G, 4 Stat, at Large, page 741, 
 sec. 2, which provides, among other things, that '' all cred- 
 itors on protested bills of exchange, wlien the drawers or 
 endorsers shall be dead, shall be upon an equality with 
 bond creditors, any law, usage or custom, to the contrary 
 notwithstanding." Against this it is urged that the fore- 
 going provision of the Act of 1786 is repealed, by implica- 
 tion, by the "Executors' Act" of 1789, 5 Stat, at Large, 
 p. 111. The latter Act prescribes the order in which debts 
 of testators and intestates are to be paid. Among the debts 
 enumerated hj this act are "bonds and other obligations," 
 and " debts due on open accounts." Luiless bills of ex- 
 change can be classed under t)ne of these two heads, there 
 is clearly no description of debts in this Act which includes 
 them. And it does not seem to me that they can properly 
 fall within the denomination of either bonds, obligations 
 or open accounts. These terms have a definite legal signi- 
 fication, and describe a class of debts entirely distinct from 
 bills and promissory notes. If bills of exchange are not 
 included among the debts enumerated in the Act of 1789, 
 then there is no such contrariety or repugnance between 
 that Act and the Act of 1786, as, in my view, indicates an 
 intention on the part of the Legislature to repeal the Act 
 of 1786. And so it was held in the case of Me dure vs. 
 Exors. of Polony, a ms, decision referred to in 1 Rice's 
 Digest, 318. It does not appear from the brief statement 
 furnished me of this case, whether the foreign bills, there 
 held to rank as specialty debts under the Act of 1786, w^ere 
 
protested before or after the death of the drawer. This, it 
 has been argued, is a material circiunstance. Although 
 not so regarding it, the exceptants to the view I have taken 
 are. entitled to luive the fact certified to the Court, that all 
 the bills established in the present case matured, and were 
 protested for non-payment after the death of Mr. Lucas, 
 the drawer. 
 
 The foreign bills presented and proved under the call for 
 creditors, in this case, arc set down in Schedule C. The 
 aggregate sum due upon these bills is $126,255 04. This 
 includes interest on the said bills to tlie 1st April, 1861 — 
 to which day all the statements of this report are made 
 up — and, also, ten per cent, for "damages" allowed by 
 the Act of 1786 on "the sum drawn for." Certain col- 
 laterals Avere lodged by Mr. Lucas, during his life, with 
 the Bank of Charleston, to secure the payment of the 
 bills drawn on Thomas Scott. One of these collaterals 
 was a policy of life insurance for $40,000, from which 
 $39,000 had been realized and applied rateably to the bills 
 before they were rendered to this^ office. The amount 
 above given ($126,255 04) is the balance due after credit- 
 ing the said payments. The remaining collaterals, still 
 held b}^ the Bank of Charleston, consist of 
 S6| shares in the capital stock of the " Cannonsboro' Mill 
 Company," standing in the name of T. Bennett Lucas, 
 
 the par value of which is $1,000 per share $36,500 
 
 Bond of Henry E. Lucas to T. Bennett Lucas (se- 
 cured b}'' a second mortgage of " Crow Island 
 Plantation," also by a first mortgage of "Kinloch 
 Swamp," and by a first mortgage of twenty-six 
 
 negroes), for 31,500 
 
 Two Bonds of Courtney and Simonton (secured by 
 
 mortgage of lots in street), for 3,400 
 
 Li adjusting the estate of Lucas, these collaterals must 
 be regarded as assets. If not applied by the holders to 
 the particular debts for which they are held as security, 
 and these debts are paid out of the general assets, then 
 the collaterals revert to the estate. In any event it is 
 
important, for the purposes of tliis report, tliat the value 
 of these securities should he ascertained and set ott" against 
 the liahilities of the estate; and it cannot aftect the final 
 result of the account if thev are set off asjainst the par- 
 ticular liahilities for the payment of which they are now 
 hypothecated. Testimony luis been taken as to the value 
 of the sesecurities. As to the stock in the Caunonsboro' 
 Mill Comjiany, it has been intimated that there is some 
 claim now being prosecuted by the said Company in 
 another cause in this Court, for which chiini the shares 
 of Mr. Lucas in said Comi)any are said to be liable. Of 
 the nature of this claim I liave no official information. 
 The evidence before me, liowever, shows that an offer 
 was made by the President of the Caunonsboro' Mill Com- 
 pany to purchase from the executors of Mr. Lucas the 
 shares standing in their testator's name, subject to all 
 claims, for ten thousand dollars, and that this offer was 
 declined, being considered far below the value of the said 
 shares. I liave, therefore, assumed ten thousand dollars 
 as the minimum value of this stock. As to the other 
 securities held by the Bank of Charleston, the testimony 
 is that the land mortgaged to secure the bond of Henry 
 E. Lucas, who is insolvent, viz : "Crow Island Plantation" 
 and "Kinloch Swamp," adjoining said plantation, would 
 "be a cheap i)roperty" at the present time at $15,000. 
 This sum would be sufficient to pay off the prior incum- 
 brance of $6,700 upon the said land, and leave $8,300 to be 
 applied to the bond of Henry E. Lucas, in the possession 
 of the Bank. The market value of the negroes mortgaged 
 to secure the same bond has been set down at $16,200. 
 The bonds of Courtney and Simonton for $3,400, are re- 
 presented as good. The aggregate value of the above 
 collateral securities are thus ascertained to be $37,900. 
 This sum deducted from the balance due upon the foreign 
 bills of excluuige ($126,255 04) will leave $88,355 04 to be 
 paid out of the general estate of Mr. Lucas in the hands 
 of his executors. Considering these bills as specialties 
 
they are the only debts of this ranlc to be provided for in 
 the future administration of the estate. In this I assume 
 that the bond hekl by the administrator of the estate of 
 Morris will be paid out of the negroes mortgaged to 
 secure it. 
 
 3. The third claim is submitted on behalf of the widow 
 
 for her dower. 
 
 Thomas Bennett Lucas died seized of the following real 
 
 estate, which has been sold by his executors: 
 
 West Point Mills, sold for $07,000 
 
 Dwelling-house, " 25,000 
 
 Lot on Commercial wharf, sold for " 1,825 
 
 Lot corner of Palmetto St., " 1,130 
 
 In all $124,955 
 
 The West Point Mills, together with thirty-six negroes 
 and a schooner called the Hettiwan, was subject, at the 
 time of the death of Mr. Lucas, to a mortsraffe securing 
 three bonds, given for the purchase money, amounting to 
 $65,507 QQ. The land embraced in the said mortgage was 
 sold by the executors, as above stated, for $97,000. The 
 thirty-six negroes and schooner were sold by them (as 
 appears by Schedule D) for $31,322. A rateable apportion- 
 ment of the mortgage debt between the real and personal 
 property embraced in the mortgage, according to their 
 respective values, will give a charge upon the land of 
 $49,518 70, and upon the negroes and schooner of 
 $15,988 96. The dwelling-house lot was subject to the 
 lien of a mortgage securing a bond for $11,112 50 given 
 for the purchase money. Upon the lot on Commercial 
 wharf and the lot on Palmetto street there were no special 
 incumbrances. The bonds secured by the foregoing mort- 
 gages have all been paid by the executors, from the pro- 
 ceeds of the sales of the realty and personalty. The estate, 
 while not sufficient to pay all the debts of the testator, is 
 sufficie^nt to pay all the specialty debts, including the for- 
 
eign bills of exchange claimed to rank as such. The 
 widow claims comj^ensation for hor dower- out of the assets 
 still remaining iii the hands of the executors. 
 
 The case of Wilson vs. McConnell, 9 Rich. Eq. R., 504, 
 furnishes the rule for the assessment of the dower in this 
 case. In the former case it was held that a husband dying 
 insolvent, his widow is entitled to have the proceeds of the 
 sales of his personal estate ajtjdied to the jtayment rateably 
 of bond debts secured by mortgages of land with other 
 specialty demands, and that the proceeds of the real estate 
 subject to dower should be resorted to only for the defi- 
 ciency in the personal assets, so applied, to satisfy the mort- 
 gage liens upon the land. 
 
 In aiDplying these principles to the present case, it is 
 necessary first to ascertain the value of the personal estate 
 of the testator. This cannot now be directly arrived at. 
 The executors have received considerable sums of money 
 from the proceeds of the mill during the time it was 
 worked by them; also from the' hire of negroes and from 
 the collection of debts due to the estate. These receipts 
 are included in the general accounts of the executors, 
 which embrace all their transactions with the estate, and 
 cannot be readily distinguished and separated. The value 
 of the personal estate may, however, be ascertained indi- 
 i-ectly, but with almost certainty, by deducting from the 
 gross sum of the cash receipts of the executors and the 
 uncollected assets still in their hands, the disbursements on 
 account of the mill, the expenses of administration and the 
 sales of the real estate. The surplus will be the amount of 
 the personal estate subject to the payment of debts. 
 The cash received by the executors from all 
 
 sources, as appears by their accounts, was. ..$310,028 69 
 Add the amount of the uncollected assets in their 
 
 hands ' 27,320 64 
 
 And the gross value of the entire estate is ob- 
 tained, viz $337,355 33 
 
Then deduct the disbursements on 
 account of the mill and the ex- 
 penses of administration $55,188 27 
 
 Also, the proceeds of the sales of 
 
 the real estate $124,955 00—180,143 27 
 
 And the difference $157,212 06 
 
 is the amount of the personal estate. This, as the primary 
 fund for the payment of debts, Avould be first applicable, 
 according to the case of Wilson vs. McConnell, to the pay- 
 ment rateably of all the specialty demands, including debts 
 secured by mortgage of the land. But in the case before 
 me, there are bond debts, secured by mortgage of the per- 
 sonalty. In this respect, the present case differs from Wil- 
 son I's. McConnell. Here the widow's equity to compel 
 the creditors secured by mortgage of the land, upon which 
 she has a lien, to resort to the personalty for pa^-ment, is 
 met by a corresponding equity on the part of creditors who 
 have a specific lien on the personalt}'. It seems to me that 
 creditors of this class are entitled to priority of payment 
 out of the proceeds of the sale of the personalty mort- 
 gaged for their security. I liave therefore deducted from 
 the amount of the personal estate as above ascertained, 
 
 viz: $157,212 06 
 
 The following debts, secured by mortgages 
 of personal property sold by the executors : 
 3 bonds to Kosa Lucas, Julius Lucas 
 and Lucy Lucas, secured by mort- 
 gage of the West Point Mill, 
 thirtv-six negroes and a schooner. 
 Rateable apportionment of debt 
 
 to negroes and schooner $15,988 96 
 
 Bond to Augustus Lucas, secured by 
 
 mortgage of negroes 18,601 24 
 
 Bohd to I^ Ball, guardian, secured by 
 
 mortgage of negroes 17,552 39 
 
 Bond to R. DeTreville, secured by 
 
 mortgage of negroes 23,929 44 
 
 In all 76,072 03 
 
 Leaving $81,140 03 
 
10 
 
 to be applied to tlie payment rateably of tlie mortgages 
 on the land and the unset-nrod specialty debts, viz: 
 Proportion of bonds to Rosa, Julins and Lucy 
 Lucas, secured by mortgage of West Point 
 
 Mill lands !"...' $4i>,518 70 
 
 Bond to M. M. Lucas, secured bv mortffao^e of 
 
 dwelling-house lands 11,112 50 
 
 $60,(J31 20 
 Bond to P. J. Barbot, unsecured 2,(320 88 
 
 $68,258 08 
 Foreign bills of exchange raidced as specialties. 88,355 04 
 
 $151,(118 12 
 The amount of the personalty ($81,140 03) applicable to 
 the i)ayment of the debts last enumerated ($151,613 12) is 
 a fraction under 53^ per cent, of the said debts. The 
 amount to be applied to the bonds secured by mortgages 
 on the land ($60,631 20) is $32,4'37 69. This\vill leave a 
 deficiency of personalty to pay said mortgage del)ts of 
 $28,193 51, and this deficiency is a charge upon the mort- 
 gaged lands. These lands were sold by the executors for 
 $122,000. The surplus remaining after providing for the 
 above deficiency is $93,806 49 ; and this sum added to the 
 sales of the lands not mortgaged, viz : lot on Commercial 
 wharf, $1,825, and lot on Palmetto street, $1,130— $2,955, 
 will give the value of the real estate $9(),761 49 — to one- 
 sixth of which, $16,126 91 i, the widow is entitled for her 
 dower, and I so find. An account of the particulani of the 
 foregoing statement marked E, is filed with this report. 
 
 It is proper here to state tliat the solicitors of the widow, 
 under her written instructions, waive 'her claim for dower 
 out of such portions of the real estate of her husband as 
 her children may be held entitled to under the will of their 
 grandfather, Jonathan Lucas. 
 
 4. Claim of Children. It is submitted that under the 
 will of Jonathan Lucas, his grandchildren, the children of 
 
11 
 
 T. Bennett Lucas, are entitled to the share which their 
 father took under the said will. And that the said sliare 
 having heen received hy T. Bennett Lucas, in land and 
 ne<i;roes, which wove sold after his death, the proceeds of 
 said sale are suhjecty^ro taiito to a lien for the claim of the 
 said children, under the limitations of the will of their 
 grandfather, Jonathan Lucas. 
 
 Jonathan Lucas died in May, 1848, leaving a will dated 
 the 25th August, 1847, whereby he devised all his estate to 
 his executors and their survivors, in trust, to manage aiid 
 conduct his mill and planting establishments until all his 
 children should marry or attain tAventy-one years of age, or 
 until his last surviving minor child should depart this life; 
 and directing that, in the mean time, his executors should 
 apply the net income of the estate to the payment of his 
 del)ts and to the support and education of his children 
 who may be unmarried and under twenty-one years of age; 
 and, also, to tlie support and education of the child or 
 children of any of his children already dead, or who might 
 thereafter die before the time appointed for the division of 
 his estate. The testator then provides for the division of 
 the estate, as follows: 
 
 "2. When all my children shall have married, or attained 
 twenty-one years of age, or when my last surviving minor 
 child shall depart this life under twenty-one, in case that 
 should happen to occur, then my executors shall divide and 
 apportion all my estate, as it shall then stand, in equal parts 
 among all my children who shall be living when the last of 
 my minor children surviving each other shall marry or 
 attain twenty-one years of age, or shall happen to die before 
 attaining such age. But grandchildren shall be substituted 
 in the place of any parent who is now dead or who may 
 hereafter die, and shall take respectively the share which 
 the parent, if living, would have taken. And my executors 
 shall take care that the share of each daughter, or of a sub- 
 stituted granddaughter, shall be settled to her sole use, 
 free from the debt or engagements of any husband she may 
 marry. 
 
12 
 
 "3. I expressly subject eat-li and every slmro given as 
 aforesaid to the followin<r limitations, that is to say, in case 
 any of my cliildren sliall die without leaving issue living at 
 the time of its decease, or in case such issue of any child 
 shall die unmarried ami under twenty-one years of age, the 
 share of such child shall revert to my estate, and be equally 
 divided among my other children, living at the happening 
 of such contingency ; or in case of the death of any child 
 having issue alive at the happening of such contingency, 
 such issue to represent the deceased parent, and to be en- 
 titled to take a share in connnon with the other children. 
 And the same rules shall ai>ply to ever^- accruing or sur- 
 vived share as to the original one. And all these limita- 
 tions and conditions shall ajiply as well to the share of my 
 daughter who has already died and has left issue, as also to 
 any others of my children who may die, either before or 
 after me." 
 
 The testator tlien appoints his executors guardians of his 
 minor cliildren, with directions that their nuiintenance and 
 education be borne by his general estate. 
 
 The fourth and fifth clauses of the will arc as follows : 
 
 " 4. I authorize my executors, from time to time, to make 
 advancements to my children to an extent not exceeding 
 the presumptive share of each, and to deliver the possession 
 and control of the same to any child at any time they, the 
 said executors, shall see fit. Such advancements, however, 
 together with all which nuiy have been made by myself, 
 shall be charged against the shares of each child to whom 
 the same may have been made, and shall constitute a }>art 
 thereof in the final division. 
 
 The advancements which may bo made to any daughter 
 shall be settled in manner already declared; and I exi^ressly 
 exonerate my executors from liability for any waste or loss 
 which may accrue to any advancement or share delivered 
 in pursuance of this, my will. And I also declare, that 
 they are to be indemnified by my estate for every liability, 
 loss or expense incurred, and shall be held accountable for 
 
13 
 
 no errors of judgment in their conduct as executors and 
 trustees. 
 
 " 5. I authorize and empower my executors to sell and 
 convey any portion of my estate which they may deem ex- 
 pedient, either for the purpose of paying debts or making 
 a division, or in the conduct or management of the busi- 
 ness. And if in their opinion circumstances should require 
 a division of my estate, in wliole or in part, before the 
 period which I have named, I fully authorize my executors 
 to make such division, and to deliver the property into the 
 hands of the legatees and devisees — such property, how- 
 ever, to remain subject in their hands to the limitations 
 already declared." 
 
 A cop}- of the entire will is tiled with this report. 
 
 The estate devised by the testator to each of his chibh-en 
 is clearly a vested estate, subject to be divested by death 
 before the youngest child nuirries or attains twenty-one 
 years of age, with remainder over to the children of such 
 deceased child limited, as in the prior devise, on their liv- 
 ing at the time when the estate should become absolute and 
 indefeasible, ?'. c, when the youngest surviving child of tes- 
 tator should marry oi* attain the age of twenty-one. 
 
 Thomas Bennett Lucas, one of the children of Jonathan 
 Lucas, died in 1850, leaving foiir children, all of whom are 
 minors. Two of the surviving children of Jonathan Lucas, 
 Augustus and Lucy, are yet under twenty-one years of age, 
 and unmarried. Under these circumstances, it is conceded, 
 I believe, that the children of Thomas Bennett Lucas would 
 be entitled to the estate devised to them, unless the event 
 upon which the estate was to become absolute and inde- 
 feasible happened in the lifetime of their father, the prior 
 devisee. And this event it is contended is not the marriage 
 or majority of the youngest child of the testator, as I have 
 assumed, but the period of the division of the estate, which 
 division the evidence shows was made during the life of 
 Thomas Bennett Lucas. 
 
 The intention of tho testator that no tinal and absolute 
 
14 
 
 division of Ijis estate should take jtlace before his yonng*est 
 child married or arrived at full age, seems to me to be clear. 
 This intention is apiiarent from the directions given in the 
 will for the management of the estate by the executors, 
 and for the appropriation by them of the income until that 
 period ; also, bv the provision made for the maintoiiaucc 
 and education of the testator's minor children and grand- 
 children out of his general estate; also, l)y the exoneration 
 of the executors from liability for any waste or loss which 
 might accrue to any sliarc advanced by them licibre the 
 period of division fixed by the will, and lastly, by the ex- 
 plicit limitations ot the will itself. It is true that authoi-ity 
 is given to the executors to make a division of the estate 
 before the youngest child marries or attains full age. But 
 this authority is coupled with an express declaration that 
 the property in that event shall remain in the hands of the 
 legatees and devisees subject to the limitations of the will. 
 And so it seems to have been held upon a bill filed by the 
 executors in 1855, asking, among other things, for the in- 
 struction of the Court upon the eonstruction of this will, as 
 to their duty to reserve a fund for the support and educa- 
 tion of the minor children and grandchildren of the tes- 
 tator. A division of the estate was then made, or was 
 about to be made, under the authority given to the execu- 
 tors by the will. The Chancellor who heard the case held 
 " that provision must be made for tlie support and educa- 
 tion of the minor children ot the testator at ihc general 
 expense of the whole in any scheme of division wliich may 
 be adopted." This decision was appealed from on the 
 ground that the division of the whole estate during the 
 minority of the children or grandchildren was left by the 
 testator to the discretion of his executors, whose decision 
 to divide the estate concluded the (juestion, and necessarily 
 cast the sujijiort and education of tl)e minors upon their 
 res})ective portions oidy. The objection now urged to the 
 claim of the children is substantially the same. It is now, 
 as then, insisted that the whole scheme of the will is based 
 upon the discretion of the executors to fix the period of 
 
15 
 
 division, and that the riglits of all parties under the will 
 are to be fixed and determined hy that discretion. The 
 Court* of Appeals affirmed the decree of the Chancellor 
 upon the case then made ; and although the question now 
 under consideration was not then immediately before the 
 Court, its determination is necessarily involved, as it seems 
 to me, in tlie decision then made, that the rights of tlie 
 children and grandchildren to maintenance and education 
 out of the general estate, were not to be affected by the ex- 
 ercise of the discretion of the executors in fixing a period 
 for distribution anterior to that fixed by the will. If the 
 exercise of that discretion could not deprive the grandchil- 
 dren of their interest in the income of the estate, much less 
 can that discretion destroy their interest in the estate itself. 
 Aiid tlie authorities seem to be clear, that if a trust in favor 
 of certain objects be once expressly created, a discretionary 
 power in the trustees, however ample, will not do away 
 widi the ett'ect of the trust previously declared. 
 
 The rights of the children under the will of their grand- 
 father being ascertained, the next inquiry is, whether the 
 share of the estate which went into the possession of their 
 father upon the division made in 1858, can now be traced 
 and distinguished, so as to enure to the benefit of the said 
 children to the exclusion of the creditors of Thomas Ben- 
 nett Lucas. In my report of the 7th March, 1860, the evi- 
 dence then taken upon this point was submitted. For 
 convenience of reference this evidence, together with such 
 facts as have subsequently been lirought to my attention, 
 are embraced in the following statement: 
 
 The executors of the will of Jonathan Lucas, upon the 
 request of the adult children, and with the •concurrence of 
 their own judgment, proceeded, in 1853, to sell the estate 
 of their testator for the purpose of making a division. On 
 the 12th July, 1858, Thomas Bennett Lucas, the eldest son 
 of the testator, purchased the AVest Point Mills establish- 
 ment, with thirty-six negroes and a schooner, for $108,000, 
 payable in cash and bonds. In payment of the cash, the 
 
16 
 
 executors received from liiiii $25,000, wliicli was raised by 
 his giving to tlie executors the folh)\ving recei[)t : 
 
 "Charleston, July 12th, 18;")3. Received from William 
 Lucas. C. G. Memniinger, and W. J. Bennett, Executors 
 of Jonathan Lucas, twenty-five thousand dollars, on ac- 
 count of my share of the Estate of said Jonathan X^ucas, 
 to be adjusted upon the final division thereof. 
 
 "T. B. LUCAS. 
 
 "In the presence of James B. Campbell." 
 
 The executors thereupon made the following entries in 
 their accounts. On the debit side they charge, "Thomas 
 B, Lucas, paid liim on account of his share of estate, 
 $25,000." And on the credit side, they credit the estate 
 as "received from T. B. Lucas, on account sales of AVest 
 Point Mills, $25,000." 
 
 For the balance of the purchase, T. B. Lucas executed 
 to the executors three bonds, in the sum of $21,000 each, 
 and one for $20,000, secured b}- mortgage of the property 
 sold. 
 
 The property was all delivered up to T. B. Lucas as pur- 
 chaser; and the bonds remained in hands of the executors 
 Avith the pi'oceeds of sales of the other property of the tes- 
 tator. 
 
 Li June, 1853, under proceedings in the Court of Chan- 
 cery, a partition of the whole estate was made, and by the 
 Master's (Mr. Grray) report, tlie whole estate Avas adjusted. 
 By that report, it was ascertained that Thomas Bennett 
 Lucas was entitled to a further sum of $2,400 44, which, 
 under the decree of the Court, was paid over to him by the 
 executors on the Ist June, 1855, in full of his share ; and 
 the following receipt was taken from him : 
 
 "Charleston, July 9th, 1855. Received from C. G. 
 Memminger, Executor of the Estate Jonathan Lucas, 
 two thousand four hundred dollars 44 cents, being the 
 balance of my share of the estate, as per decree of the 
 
 Court of Equity. 
 
 "T. B. LUCAS. 
 "$2,400 44." 
 
17 
 
 This payment by the executor was made by setting oft 
 the amount against the interest due on certain bonds of 
 T. Bennett Lucas, given for the purchase of property from 
 the estate of Jonathan Lucas, viz : 
 $1,009 94. Interest written oft" from bond for $10,500, 
 
 given for purchase of dwelling-house. 
 $1,093 93. Interest written oft" from bond for $17,605, 
 given for negroes not embraced in the West 
 Point Mill purchase. 
 $ 269 57. Interest written off" from one of the four bonds 
 given for the purchase of the " West Point 
 establishment." 
 
 In the June term, 1856, the Master (Mr. Gray) reported 
 that the above sum of $2,400 44 had been paid over to T. 
 Bennett Lucas by the executors, and that they had full}' 
 administered the estate and accounted for the same. 
 
 The bonds given by T. Bennett Lucas for the several 
 purchases made by him were assigned under the decree of 
 the Court to pay the shares of the other devisees and 
 legatees. That portion of tlic decree which relates to the 
 present subject matter is as follows : * 
 
 " On hearing the report of the Master, it is ordered that 
 the same be confirmed, and that the complainants (the 
 executors) do give the credits and assign the bonds, stocks 
 and securities, and pay the cash balances to the several 
 legatees who have attained the age of twenty-one years, 
 according to the allotment contained in Schedule Xo. 6, 
 filed with said report, etc. 
 
 "It is further ordered, that each of the adult defendants 
 and the guardians of each of the infants, do contribute the 
 sum of three hundred and ten dollars annually to a com- 
 mon fund for the support of the infants, as recommended 
 in the report, to be paid to the Master in half yearly pay- 
 ments, in advance, on the first of every July and January, 
 until otherwise ordered by the Court, etc." 
 
 All the bonds given by T. Bennett Lucas for his pur- 
 chases from the estate of Jonathan Lucas have been paid 
 and the mortgages satisfied. Of the four bonds given for 
 2 
 
18 
 
 the "AVest Point establishment" one was }»ai<l in the life- 
 time of Mr. Liieas, and the remaining three hv his execu- 
 tors since his death. Mr. Lucas died in possession of all 
 the land and negroes referred to in the foregoing state- 
 ment. 
 
 It will be convenient to consider, first, the claim of the 
 children in rcsj)ect to the $:ir),OOU, for which a receipt was 
 given 1)\- Mr. Lucas to the executors on the Litli July, 
 1853. It is clear that no money passed between the jiar- 
 ties. Mr. Lucas was the purchaser of the Mill establish- 
 ment for $108,000. Against this purchase was discounted 
 his "presumptive share" in the estate ($25,000), and the 
 payment of the balance of the purchase money was secured 
 by four bonds for $83,000, secured by a mortgage of the 
 land, negroes and schooner conveyed to him l)y the ex- 
 ecutors. To the extent of $25,000, he received his share 
 in properly. The entries made b}' the executors in their 
 accounts with the estate indicate ujion their face that they 
 received $25,000 from Mv. Lucas for the cash portion of 
 said purchase, and that they immediately paid to Mr. Lucas 
 a like sum on account of his share in the estate. \h\t this 
 is merely a mode of statement adopted by the executors in 
 recording their transactions with the estate, and does not 
 avoid the fact that T. Bennett Lucas received the $25,000 
 in property. Can the property be traced and distinguished 
 80 as to enure to the benefit of the children and postpone 
 the claims of the general ci'cditors of T. B. Lucas until the 
 trusts of the will in favor of the children are discharged? 
 I think it can. To the extent of the $25,000 Mr. Lucas 
 received his share in specie. In land, negroes and a ^schooner 
 which were in his possession when ho died, and which were 
 sold by his executors, and the proceeds accounted for by 
 them. 
 
 If the executors of «Tonatlian Lucas, in the division of 
 that estate, had delivered to T. B. Lucas, as his distributive 
 share, certain lands and negroes, valued at $25,000, and 
 received an acknowledgment from him in which the prop- 
 erty was described, it can scarcely be doubted that he would 
 have taken the property subject to the limitations of the 
 
19 
 
 will ; and if after his death the same property had passed 
 into the hands of his executors, it is equally clear that the 
 estate of the children, in the said property under their 
 grandfather's will, would have vested to the exclusion of 
 all others. The only circumstance which creates douht is 
 the fact that the property which T. B. Lucas received, on 
 account of his share in the estate, was mixed Avith other 
 property- of which he hecame possessed by purchase from 
 the same estate. And here, I think, the weight of 
 authority is in favor of the equitable lien of the children, 
 as against the general creditors of their father, who are the 
 only parties whose interests arc prejudiced by said lien. 
 AYhether T. Bennett Lucas be regarded as a trustee, under 
 the fifth clause of Jonathan Lucas' will, or as a bona fide 
 purchaser with notice of the trust, the same rule applies 
 that trust proi)erty niay be followed whenever it is of a 
 tangible nature, and it is imniatcrkd that the trust property ift 
 blended ic'dh other property of the mme nature, belonging benefi- 
 rkdlg to the trustee or purchaser v'ith Notice. Hill on Trustees, 
 531 and notes. Price vs. Blackmore, 6 Beav.,*507. The " 
 title from the executors of Jonathan Lucas to T. Bennett 
 Lucas conveys an absolute fee, and does not refer to the 
 trusts of the will. It is possible that the creditors of T. 
 B. Lucas may have been thereby misled (as it is argued) in 
 their estimate of his property; but the fact that the con- 
 veyance is made by executors would seem to be sufficient 
 to put creditors on the inquiry as to their title. Be this 
 however as it may, the rule, as above stated, appears, so far 
 as general creditors are concerned, to be inflexible. Under 
 all the circumstances, I ani of opinion that the claim of the 
 children of T. Bennett Lucas, to the extent of $25,000, 
 must be regarded as a specific lien upon the West Point 
 land, negroes and schooner, and that they are entitled to 
 priority of payment out of the proceeds of sale of that 
 property. 
 
 Li addition to the $25,000 received by Mr. Lucas from 
 the estate of his father, the testimony shows that he subse- 
 quently received from the executors the sum of $2,400 44 
 in full of his share in the estate, making the value of the 
 
1^0 
 
 entire share ^27,400 44. As to this hist receipt of $2,400 44, 
 I have not hecu able to attain tlic same conclusion as in 
 the matter of the 8'25,000. That the $2,400 44 originally 
 formed a pai't of the share in the ■ estate of Jonathan 
 Lucas, which, at the death of T. Bennett Lucas, vested in 
 his children, I have no douht. But it did not remain in 
 specie, nor was it ever invested in other property. Tt was 
 applied by the executors to the payment of interest due 
 upon the bonds of T. B. Lucas, given for the credit portion 
 of his purchases from the estate. And the entire amount, 
 except $2110 57, was written oil:' from bonds given for pro})- 
 erty not embraced in the AVest Point Mill purchase. All 
 the bonds, to the interest of which the said sum of 
 $2,400 44 was applied, were assigned to the other devisees 
 and legatees in settlement of their respective shares. The 
 interest accruing on these bonds was a debt to them, not 
 for the purchase money of the property of which their shares 
 originally consisted, but as the consideration for the indul- 
 gence granted in the credit allowed to the purchaser. Mr, 
 Lucas had the use of the purchase money, and, as an equiva- 
 lent, the parties entitled to said money received as interest 
 the balance coming to him from the estate on a final settle- 
 ment. It is not perceived how such an appropriation of a 
 portion of his share can be identified with the property pur- 
 chased by him any more than if, before the final settlement, 
 Mr. Lucas had enjoyed the })()ssession, by hire, of property 
 subsequently purchased by him, and a portion of his share 
 in the estate had been paid to the other devisees and dis- 
 tributees as an equivalent for the use and occupation. It* is 
 a case of "waste or loss," in the hands of the prior devisee, 
 referred to in the fourth section of the testator's will, for 
 which the executors are exonerated from liability. But 
 while I do not see that any part of the estate of T. Bennett 
 Lucas is so specifically affected by this application of a por- 
 tion of his share in the estate of Jonathan Lucas, as to be 
 liable to the claim of the children now before the Court, it 
 is clear to my mind that the $2,400 44 having been appro- 
 priated to a personal obligation of their father, his general 
 estate should be held liable for it, and this being insolvent. 
 
21 
 
 the children are entitled to come in pari 2)assu with the 
 other creditors and prove against the estate the amount so 
 due to them. And I so find. 
 
 As already stated, the widow postpones her claim for 
 dower out of so much of the land as nuiy he held suhject 
 to the claim of licr children. This renders necessary an 
 apportionment of their claim for $25,000, hereinbefore al- 
 lowed as distinguishable from the })ropcrty of the general 
 estate of T. Bennett Lucas, between the realty and person- 
 alty in which the said sum was received. The West Point 
 lands, as previously shown, were sold for $97,000. The 
 thirty-six negroes and the schooner llettiwan, for $-31,322. 
 A rateable apportionment of $25,000 between these sums, 
 results in a charge upon the land of nineteen and a half 
 per cent., or $18,<J15. One-sixth of this sum, or $3,152 50, 
 must, therefore, be discounted against the amount herein- 
 before assessed for the widow's dower. 
 
 5. The simple contract demands, presented and proved 
 under the call for creditors in this case, are set forth in the 
 schedule marked F. Including the claim of the children 
 ranked in this class, these debts amount to $172,845 36. 
 If the findings of this report, as to the claims entitled to 
 priority of payment, are sustained b}- the Court, the surplus 
 applicable to the simple contract debts will be $16,507 50, 
 or a fraction over nine and a half per cent, of said debts. 
 The following statement will exhibit this result : 
 
 Debts ranked as specialty % $88,355 04 
 
 Dower of widow $16,126 91 
 
 Less postponed to claim of children.. 3,152 50 
 
 $12,974 41 
 
 Claim of children, specific lien 25,000 00 
 
 Simple contract demands, $172,845 35 — 9^i 
 
 per cent 16,507 50 
 
 The total agreein<i: with the amount of assets 
 
 in executor's hands $142,836 95 
 
 as hereinbefore reported. 
 
 Respectful!}' submitted, 
 
 JAMES TUPPER, 
 
 llaster in JEquitjj. 
 September 3, 1861. 
 
22 
 
 TESTIMONY 
 
 Master's Office, 26th November, 1860. 
 
 Theodore Stoney, sworn— says : Is oiic'of executors of will 
 of T. B. Lucas; the only outstanding bond of his testator 
 unpaid is a bond of Wm. Whaley, administrator, for $3,500, 
 on which his testator was surety for J. B. Campbell, Esq. 
 There is due to sundry banks on notes, $105,050 ; Notes to 
 individuals not in bank, $8,136 87 ; Bills of exchange, claim- 
 ed as si)ccialty debt, $141,885 67. 
 
 On this last sum $40,000 has been paid from the policy 
 of insurance on testator's life; the balance of last item is 
 subject to fui-lher reduction by whatever may be received 
 on certain collaterals in hands of parties claiming under 
 said bills of exchange. There are, also, claims on open 
 accounts by sundry creditors, amounting to $48,719 94. 
 
 All the assets have been converted except a tract of land 
 in St. Thomas' Parish of little value, and sundry outstand- 
 ing accounts, amounting to about $9,000; these are sup- 
 posed to be good. The cash balance in executors' hands, as 
 per account rendered, is $90,510 31. 
 
 In addition to this sum, there is in the Savinsrs Bank, 
 deposited by executors to meet widow's claim of dower, 
 $25,000 ; of which $4,500 was deposited on 12th December, 
 1859, and $20,500 was deposited on 29th March, 1860. 
 (Signed) THEODORE STONEY, 
 
 Executor Estate of T. B. Lucas. 
 
 Master's Office, 21th Novaubcr, 1860. 
 ./. K. Sass, sworn — says : Is President of the Bank of 
 Charleston ; certain drafts were drawn by T. B. Lucas, in 
 his lifetime, on Thomas Scott, of New Y^ork, tlirough the 
 Bank of Charleston, the Planters' and Mechanics' Bank, 
 the People's Bank, Bank of South Carolina, Union Bank, 
 and Farmers' and Exchange Bank. These drafts amount 
 in the aggregate to $96,500; on this sum about $39,000 has 
 been [)aid from the proceeds of certain policies of life insu- 
 
•23 
 
 ranee assigned by the said T. B. Lucas, the bahince is 
 
 secured by the following collaterals : 
 
 Bond of H. E. Lucas and interest, 15th October, 
 
 1858 ^31,500 
 
 36| shares Cannonsboro' Mill and AVharf Company. 
 1 bond of T. B. Lucas, S. G. Oourtenav and C. 
 
 H. Simonton ". 1,400 
 
 1 bond of T. B. Lucas, S. G. Coiirtenav and C. 
 
 H. Simonton ! 2,000 
 
 These collaterals were assigned by Lucas to Scott, and 
 by Scott turned over to witness to be collected and applied 
 to the payment on the said drafts ratoably among the said 
 banks. The bond of IL E. Lucas, for $31,500, is secured 
 by a second mortgage of a plantation on North Santee — 
 cannot say to what extent this is avaihil)]e. 
 
 The shares in the Cannonsboro' Mill and Wharf Com- 
 pany, he thinks, are w^orth about $15,000. An offer was 
 made by the President of the Company to pay $10,000,. 
 and take the shares in full settlement of all demands be- 
 tween the estate of T. B. Lucas and said Company. This 
 offer was not accepted. 
 
 The two bonds of Lucas, Courtenay and Simonton, are 
 secured by a mortgage, and are supposed to be good. 
 
 Witness represents claims against the estate of T. B. 
 Lucas, on drafts unsecured by collaterals, amounting to 
 $12,000. These are drafts on Wilbur & Price, of ilew 
 York, and accepted by them. 
 
 The acceptors of these drafts have not paid them — they 
 are under protest. 
 
 There are other drafts held by banks in the city which 
 are not secured; does not know the amounts of these drafts, 
 or by what banks they are held. 
 
 The Bank of Charleston holds claims on the estate of 
 T. B. Lucas on promissory notes. 
 
 The bond of II. E. Lucas, for $31,500 is secured by 
 a mortgage of Crow Island, and an adjoining tract of 
 one hundred acres, and by twenty-seven negroes. Witness 
 thinks there is a prior mortgage incumbrance on the land,- 
 but not on the negroes. 
 
 (Signed) J. K. SASS, President. 
 
24 
 
 MAiSTEu's Office, 2(1 Fchrmrj/, 1861. 
 Ravenel vs. Lucas. 
 
 M. P. Maifh'icsscn, sworn — says: The statement of tlie 
 iifFairs of tlie assigned estate of Ilenrv E. Lucas, marked 
 A, is submitted by him as a correct abstract of the assets 
 and liabilities of the said estate. 
 
 M. P. MATTIIIESSEN, 
 
 Af^eut of Q'cdiiors. 
 Sworn to before me, this 2d Februar}', 1861. 
 
 James TirPEii, blaster in E<]uit)j. 
 
 t^taiement of affairs of Henri/ E. Lucas, of North Santce. 
 
 LIABILITIES. 
 
 Bond secured hj first mortgage of Crow Island 
 plantation, on North Santce river, to W. C. 
 Heyward $6,733 00 
 
 Bond secured by first mortgage of Woodside 
 plantation, on North Santce, and thirty-seven 
 negroes to trustee of Mrs. Ewbank 6,871 95 
 
 Bond secured by second mortgage of Woodside 
 plantation, on North Santee, and thirty-seven 
 negroes to Miss Rosa Lucas 7,133 23 
 
 Bond to T. B. Lucas, secured by second mort- 
 gage on Crow Island 
 
 First mortgage on Kinloch ^wamp 
 
 First mortgage on twenty-six negroes 31,500 00 
 
 Bond to Wm. Hume, secured by mortgage of 
 
 one negro 859 57 
 
 Interest due on above, about 4,000 00 
 
 Balance due Touey Weston 1,000 00 
 
 $58,097 75 
 
 ASSETS. 
 
 Crow Island plantation on North Santee river, 
 with two hundred and fifty acres rice land 
 
25 
 
 under bank, no high land — pnrcliased four 
 years since from Master in Equity, for 
 
 $10,000 $20,000 00 
 
 Woodside plantation on North Santee river, 
 one hundred acres rice land under bank, two 
 
 hundred and fifty high land 1 0,000 00 
 
 Seventy-five negroes, at $600 45,000 00 
 
 Kinloch swamp on Santee 500 00 
 
 Summer house on South Santee 500 00 
 
 $76,000 00 
 
 Assets $76,000 00 
 
 Liabilities 59,000 00 
 
 Surplus $17,000 00 
 
 Jas. B. Campbell, sworn — says: The bond of witness for 
 $3,500, now held by W. Whaley, adm'r, Avas given for the 
 purchase money of ten slaves bought by witness from the 
 estate of Geo. ]^. Morris, and said bond was secured by a 
 mortgage of the said slaves and by the personal security of 
 T. B. Lucas as a joint obligor of said bond; witness is in 
 possession of the said negroes. 
 
 JAS. B. CAMPBELL. 
 
 Sworn to before me, this 4th Feb., 1861. 
 
 James Tupper, Master in Equity. 
 
 Jos. B. Campbell, sworn — says: Crow Island was sold by 
 the ^faster for $10,000; very soon after this sale it could 
 'have been resold for about $15,000; Mr. Lucas put exten- 
 sive improvements upon it; witness, from his confidential 
 intercourse with Ilenrj' E. Lucas and T. Bennett Lucas, 
 and his knowledge of the property, came to the conclusion 
 that the property was Avorth, about two or two and a half 
 years ago, $25,000; witness has no doubt that it would be 
 a cheap property now at $15,000. 
 
 JAS. B. CAMPBELL. 
 
 Sworn to before me, this 26th April, 1861. 
 James Tupper, llaster in Equity. 
 
26 
 
 I think tliat tlio interest of tlio estate of T. B. Lucas, in 
 the Cannonsboro" Wharf and Mill Company, subject to the 
 claims upon the same, is worth from $10,000 to $12,000. 
 
 C. M. FURMAN. 
 26th Xoveml)er, 1860. 
 
 Testimony on Claim of J. 15. Campi5i:ll, Usq. 
 
 Master's Office, 1st Mai/^ 1861. 
 
 P. .7. Barbot, sworn — says: The city bonds referred to in 
 the executors' account with Mr. Campbell were delivered 
 to Mr. Campbell on the 25th Sept., 1857. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Cavipbell. — Understood that Mr. 
 Campbell acted for Mr. Lucas as a friend; knows that Mr. 
 Campbell was employed by Mr. T. B. Lucas to attend to 
 business for IL E. Lucas, senior; knows that Mr. Campbell 
 did business for Mr. T. B. Lucas for a long period; there 
 were frequent and daily consultations; did a good deal; 
 remembers that Mr. Campbell acted for Mr. Lucas in the 
 purchase of the West Point Mill property, but understood 
 from Mr. Lucas that Mr. Campbell w^as acting for him as a 
 friend; that he was under some obligation; Mr. Cami)bell 
 acted for Mr. Lucas in all his transactions. 
 
 (Mem. check of T. B. Lucas, for $7,050, dated 12th Sep- 
 tember, 1857, i)ut in evidence by Mr. Cam[)bcll, with 
 sundry endorsements.) 
 
 (Letter of J. B. Campbell to Mr. Lucas, put in evidence^ 
 by Mr. Jervey.) 
 
 Sworn to before me, this 1st May, 1861. 
 
 Jambs Tupper, Master in Equity. 
 
 G. W. Dingle, sworn : The title deeds and mortgages 
 referred to in Mr. Campbell's bill against Henry E. Lucas, 
 senior, was prepared by Mr. Campbell ; Mr. T. Bennett 
 Lucas was frequently in the oflice of Mr. Campbell ; Mr. 
 
27 
 
 Campbell attended to some case for Mr. Lucas, in wliicli 
 Henry Willis was a party ; also a case about damaged rice. 
 
 Sworn to before me, tins 1st May, 1861. 
 
 James Tupper, Master in Equity. 
 
 Henrii Bui.st, Es/j., sworn : Witness regards the Jirst item 
 in the bill of Mr. Campbell as reasonable ; as to the second 
 item, can say nothing ; thinks ^200 a reasonable charge for 
 pre[)ai'ing conveyances and examining title to property 
 referred to in second item ; thinks fourth item reasonable ; 
 the fifth item knows nothing about. 
 
 As for bill for services rendered for Henry E. Lucas, 
 senior, says : First item, knows nothing ; the other items are 
 reasonable, except the last item, about which he knows 
 nothing. 
 
 Sworn to before me, this 1st May, 1861. 
 
 James Tupper, Master in Equity. 
 
 Jacob Cohen, sworn — says : His charge as agent for nego- 
 tiating the purchase of the West Point Mill establishment 
 would be $1,000. If there be extra labor and services an 
 additional charge Avould be made ; the minimum charge 
 for the si)ecial service above referred to would be $1,000. 
 
 JACOB COHEK 
 Sworn to before me, this 2d May, 1861. 
 
 James Tupper, Master in Equity. 
 
 4 
 
 Affidavits annexed to Claim of J. B. Campbell, Esq. 
 Personally appeared J. B. Campbell, Esq., and makes oath 
 that the foregoing account is for services actually rendered, 
 and that the charges for the same are fair and just — and 
 that the other items are correct, subject to such discounts 
 as may be established by the Estate of the late T. B. Lucas. 
 
 JAMES B. CAMPBELL. 
 Sworn to before me, this 30th April, 1861. 
 
 James Tupper, Master in Equity. 
 
28 
 
 Additional affidavit of Mr. Campbell, wlio. lieiiiix sworn — 
 says, that 
 
 The foregoing is not, and docs not, purport to he a full 
 statement of his side of the account between himself and 
 the late T. B. Lu'-as. The same was not filed hy him as 
 his claim in the Master's office, nor was it made up for that 
 purpose. The circumstances under which said statement 
 of account was made will be understood by the letter ap- 
 pended to it, and are as follows : The executors of Mr. 
 Lucas made a claim upon Mr. Campbell and commenced 
 suit thereon. Mr. Campbell thereupon made out the skel- 
 eton account above, selecting such items of services, etc., 
 as were easily proved or known to Mr. Memminger, the 
 attorney of the executors, and was submitted to him for 
 the consideration of the executors whether it was worth 
 wdiile for them to press their suit, seeing that the balance 
 would be against the estate if the items ^\•erc charged at 
 low rates. Messrs. Memminger, Jervey and AVilkinson, or 
 the executors, placed the account and letter in the Master's 
 office, and afterward Mr. Campbell, at the suggestion of 
 the Master, added the amounts to each item which were 
 previously left blank, 
 
 Mr. Campl)ell claims the right now to make }troof of his 
 claim, generally, not only for services but also for moneys 
 due to him otherwise, and especially for the sum of about 
 twelve hundred dollars, being Mr. Campbell's share of 
 amount of neiz-ro hire and freight erroneouslv charged in 
 account of Cannonsboro' Mill and paid by Mr. Campbell, 
 lL)Ut were admitted or allowed to be correct. The circum- 
 stances under which said payment and other payments were 
 made, viz : the retention by JMr. Lucas of money in his 
 hands, will appear in evidence. 
 
 JAMES B. CAMPBELL. 
 
 Sworn to before me, this 1st May, 18G1. 
 
 James T upper, Master in Equity. 
 
29 
 
 A. 
 
 [copy of will 'of JONATHAN LUCAS.] 
 
 State of SoiUh Carolina : 
 
 I, Jonathan Lucas, of Charleston, do make and ordain 
 this to be my last will and testament. 
 
 I give, devise, and heqncath, all my estate and propevt}', 
 of every kind, nnto my executors, or such of them as shall 
 qualify upon this my will, and to the survivors and survivor 
 of them in trust, that they shall manage and conduct my 
 mills and planting establishments hy such tilting agents, 
 and in such manner as they shall deem most for the advan- 
 tage of my family, until all my children shall marry, or 
 attain twentj'-one years of age, or until my last surviving 
 minor child shall depart this life ; and in the meantime 
 my said executors shall apply the net income to the pay- 
 ment of my debts, and to the su})port and education of my 
 children who may be unmarried and under twenty-one 
 years, and also to the support and education of the child or 
 children of any of my children who have already died, or 
 who ma}' hereafter die before the time a^jpointed for the 
 division of my estate; the surplus income, if any, to be 
 applied at the discretion of my executors to the advance- 
 ment of my other children who are or may Ijccome adult, 
 or to be invested and abide tho iinal distribution of my 
 estate. 
 
 2. "When all my children shall have married, or attained 
 twenty-one years of age, or when my last surviving minor 
 child shall depart this life under twenty-one, in case that 
 should happen to occur, then my executors shall divide and 
 apportion all my estate, as it shall then stand, in equal parts 
 among all my children who shall be living when the last 
 of my minor children surviving each other shall marry or 
 attain twenty-one years of age, or shall happen to die be- 
 fore attaining such age. But grandchildren shall be substi- 
 tuted in the place of any parent Avho is now dead or who 
 may hereafter die, ar.d shall take respectively the share 
 
30 
 
 which the parent, if living, would have taken. And my 
 executors shall take care that the share of each daughter, or 
 of a suhstitnted granddaughter, p;hall he settled to h.er sole 
 use, free from the deht or engagements of any husliand she 
 may marry. 
 
 3. I expressly subject each and every sliare given as 
 aforesaid to the following lin\itations: that is to say. in case 
 any of my children shall die without leaving issue, living 
 at the time of its decease, or in case sucli issue ot any child 
 shall die unmarried, and under twenty-years of age, the 
 share of such child shall revert to my estate, and he equally 
 divided among my other children, living at the happening 
 of such contingenc}' ; or in case of the death of any child 
 having issue alive at the happening of such contingency, 
 such issue to represent the deceased parent, and to he enti- 
 tled to take a share in common with the other children. 
 And the same rules shall ap[)]y to every accruing or sur- 
 vived share, as to the original one. And all these Hmita- 
 tions and conditions shall ap}»]y as well to the share of my 
 daughter who has alread}^ died and has left issue, as aiso to 
 any others of my children who may die, either before or 
 after me. 
 
 3. I appoint my executors to be guardians of my minor 
 children, authorizing them- to expend upon their education 
 whatever sums they may see fit. And inasmuch as my 
 elder children have had the benefit of their education from 
 my estate, the charges for the maintenance and education 
 of my said minor children shall be borne by my general 
 estate, and shall not be charged to the separate account of 
 the children. 
 
 4. I authorize my executors, from time to time, to make 
 advancements to my children to an extent not exceeding the 
 presumptive share of each, and to deliver the possession 
 and control of the same to any child at any time they, the 
 said executors, shall see fit. Such advancements, liowever, 
 together with all which may have been made by myself, 
 shall be charged against the shares of each child to Axhom 
 the same may have been made, and shall constitute a part 
 thereof in the final division. 
 
31 
 
 The advancements Avliich may be made to any daughter 
 shall be settled in manner already declared ; and I expressly 
 exonerate my executors from liability for any waste or loss 
 which may accrue to any advancement or share delivered 
 in pursuance of this, my will. And, I also declare, that 
 they are to be indemnified by my estate for every liability, 
 loss or expense incurred, and shall be held accountable for 
 no errors of judgment in their conduct as executors and 
 trustees. 
 
 5. I authorize and empower my executors to sell and 
 convey any portion of my estate which they may deem 
 expedient, either for the purpose of ]»aying debts or making 
 a division, or in the conduct or management of the busi- 
 ness. And if in their opinion circumstances should require 
 a di\ision of my estate, in whole or in part, before the 
 period which I have named, I fully authorize nn* executors 
 to make such division, and to deliver the property into the 
 hands of the legatees and devisees — such property, how- 
 ever, to remain subject in their hands to the limitations 
 ali-eady declared. 
 
 G. It is my desire that my Middleburg plantation and 
 negroes, with appurtenances, should, if possible, be kept in 
 my family. I therefore authorize and empower my execu- 
 tors to sell and assign the same to some one of my children, 
 such as the said executors sliall deem best; and in order to 
 enal»le such child to pay for the same, the executors shall 
 tix upon the property what they consider a fair price, and 
 may make the terms of the sale such as they may deem 
 most advisable to effect the object in view. And they 
 shall be authorized to assign to an}' other of the children 
 in part or in entire satisfaction of their shares, as the same 
 may reach, so much of bonds or securities, taken for the 
 purchase, as they may deem expedient. 
 
 7. I appoint my friend AVilliam Lucas, C. G. Memmin- 
 ger and W. J. Bennett, to be executors of this, my will, 
 and I authorize a majority of those of them who may 
 quality and be alive to do all the acts which my executors 
 are hereinbefore authorized to do ; and if there be but one. 
 
32 
 
 then I authorize that one ; and I do hc)-ol)y re\-oke all otlior 
 wills hy nie at any time made. 
 
 Witness my hand and seal, at Charleston, this 2")th Au- 
 gust, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hun- 
 dred and forty-seven. Signed, sealed, ]in1)lislied and 
 
 decreed l)y the said Jonathan Lueas, ) 
 
 1 ,. 1 • 1 , .,, ^ i. i. 4. > Jon. Lucas, 
 
 as and lor ins last will and testament, J 
 
 iu the presence of us, the undersigned witnesses, who. 
 
 at his request, in his presence and in the presence of 
 
 each other, have hereunto subserihed our names the 
 
 day and year above written. 
 
 ^[ic'k JoIIXST(^N'. 
 
 ■ . Elias S. Bknni;tt. 
 
 Benj. AV. PiiisE. 
 
 Proved before M. T. Mendenhall, Esq., Ordinary for 
 Charleston District, 10th May, A. D., 1848; and on 28d 
 June, A. D., 1848, William Lucas, C. G. Mcmminger and 
 W. J. Bennett, Esqs., qualified as executors thereof. 
 
 Ordinary's Office, ChnrlesUw District, May, A. 7)., lS4'.t. 
 
EXHIBITS. 
 
 B. 
 
 Assets of Estate of Thomas Bennett Lucas. 
 
 Cash balance in hands of executors 
 
 19th May, 1860 $90,510 31 
 
 Cash deposited in Savings Institu- 
 tion, 12th December, 1859 $4,500 00 
 
 Cash deposited in Savings Institu- 
 tion, 29th March, 1860 20,500 00 
 
 115,510 31 
 
 Bond of Edward S. Lucas, 22d Xo- 
 
 vember, 1859 $13,000 00 
 
 Bond of J. K. Bevin and H. Bul- 
 
 wiukle, 13th March, 1860 144 00 
 
 Bond of John Shendan and John 
 
 Blake, 13th March, 1860 654 00 
 
 Bond of J. II. Behling, 29th March, 
 
 1860 754 00 
 
 Bond of J. K. and W. C. Dukes, 
 
 27th March, 1860 2,287 00 
 
 Bond of C. A. and R. G. Chisolm, 
 
 13th March, 1860 834 00 
 
 Bond of J. R. Baker and W. S. 
 
 Elliott, 13th March, 1860 467 00 
 
 18,140 00 
 
 Account of Simmons Lucas, Sr $3,350 70 
 
 H. E. Lucas, Sr 4,863 60 
 
 B. J. Johnson 122 16 
 
 " Simmons Lucas, Jr 360 35 
 
 " Thomas M. AVaguer.... 489 83 
 
 9,186 64 
 
 $142,836 95 
 3 
 
34 
 
 C. 
 
 Liabilities of Estate of T. B. Lucas. 
 
 BOND 
 
 Of James B. Campbell and Thomas Bennett Lucas, 
 conditioned for the payment to William Whaley, ad- 
 ministrator of Dr. G. W. Morris, of $8,500, in live equal 
 annual instalments with interest, payable annually upon 
 the whole amount unpaid. Bond dated •20th January, 
 1858 ; interest paid to 1st March, 1859. 
 
 Amount of bond $3,500 00 
 
 1860. 
 March 1, one year's interest due this date 245 00 
 
 3,745 00 
 
 1861. 
 March 1, one year's interest on $3,745 262 15 
 
 4,007 15 
 April 1, one month's interest on $4,007.15 23 37 
 
 $4,030 52 
 
35 
 
 FOREIGN BILLS OF EXCHANGE 
 
 Rendered against estate of Thomas Bennett Lucas, 
 deceased, and claimed to be specialty debts — interest com- 
 puted to 1st April, 1861 : 
 
 Acceptances of Wilbur & Price. 
 1859. 
 Oct. 2-1. — Bank of Charleston : 
 
 Draft S5,500 00 
 
 Protest 85 
 
 Interest 534 77 
 
 S6,035 62 
 
 Dee. 8.— Do. Draft 6,500 00 
 
 Protest 85 
 
 Interest 584 65 
 
 7,085 50 
 
 Damages 1,200 00 
 
 $14,321 12 
 
 Oct. 15. — Union Bank: 
 
 Draft 6,500 81 
 
 Interest 663 26 
 
 7,164 07 
 
 Nov. 29.— Do. Draft 1,400 00 
 
 Interest 131 02 
 
 1,531 02 
 
 Damages 790 08 
 
 9,485 17 
 
 Dec. IG.— State Bank: 
 
 Draft 6,000 00 
 
 Interest 540 82 
 
 6,540 82 
 
 Damages 600 00 
 
 7,140 82 
 
 Nov. 26. — Farmers' and Exchange Bank : 
 
 Draft 6,600 00 
 
 Interest 620 22 
 
 7,220 22 
 
 Damages (560 00 
 
 7,880 2J 
 
 " 1. — Planters' and Mechanics' Bank : 
 
 Draft 3,000 00 
 
 Interest 296 88 
 
 3,296 88 
 
 Damages 300 00 
 
 3,596 «^ 
 
 Carried forward $42,424 21 
 
36 
 
 Brouprht forward $42,424 21 
 
 Oct. 24. — Bank of South Carolina : 
 
 Draft 4,500 00 
 
 Interest 452 37 
 
 4,952 37 
 
 Damages 450 00 
 
 5,402 37 
 
 Nov. 1. — Conner S^' Co.: 
 
 Draft 3,000 00 
 
 Interest 296 88 
 
 3,296 88 
 
 Damages 300 00 
 
 3,596 88 
 
 S51,423 46 
 
 Acceptances of Thomas Scott. 
 1859. 
 Oct. -28.— Bank- of Charlesion : 
 
 Draft S2,600 00 
 
 Int. to 28th Nov . 15 46 
 
 2,615 46 
 Then paid 520 00 
 
 2,095 46 
 Int. to 16th Jan. ,'60. . 19 70 
 
 2,115 16 
 Then paid 260 00 
 
 1,855 16 
 Int. to 28th Feb 15 30 
 
 1,870 46 
 Then paid 260 00 
 
 1,610 46 
 Int. to 1st April, '61. . 122 88 
 
 1,733 34 
 
 Mot. 9.— Do. Draft 3,800 00 
 
 Int. to 28th Nov 13 85 
 
 3,813 85 
 Then paid 760 00 
 
 Carried forward 3,053 85 1,733 34 
 
87 
 
 Brought forward 3,053 85 1,733 34 
 
 Int. to 16th Jan., '60. . 28 68 
 
 3,082 53 
 Then paid 38(t 00 
 
 2,702 53 
 Int. to 28th Feb 22 28 
 
 2,721 81 
 Tlien paid 380 00 
 
 2,344 81 
 Int. to 1st April, '61 . . 1 78 02 
 
 2,523 73 
 
 Nov. 11. — Bank of Chnrleslon : 
 
 Draft 4,900 00 
 
 Int. to 28th Nov 15 98 
 
 4,915 98 
 Then paid 980 00 
 
 3,935 98 
 Int. to 16th Jan.. '60. . 46 05 
 
 3,982 03 
 Then paid 490 00 
 
 3,492 03 
 Int. to 28th Feb., '60. 28 83 
 
 3,520 86 
 Then paid 490 00 
 
 3,030 86 
 Int. to 1st April, '61. . 231 28 
 
 1859. 
 
 Nov. 1 5.— Do. Draft 2,500 00 
 
 Int. to 28th Nov 6 23 
 
 2,506 23 
 Then paid 500 00 
 
 3,262 14 
 
 2,006 23 
 Int. to 16th Jan., '60. 18 85 
 
 Carried forward 2,025 08 7,519 21 
 
38 
 
 Brouplit forward 2,02.3 08 7,519 21 
 
 Then paid 2.-J0 00 
 
 1,775 08 
 Int. to 28th Vvh 14 64 
 
 1.7SJ) 72 
 Then paid 250 00 
 
 1,439 72 
 
 Int. to 1st AjH-il. '01. . 109 83 
 
 Nov. 18. — Bdiik of Charleston : 
 
 Draft 6,900 00 
 
 Int. to 28th Nov 13 23 
 
 6,913 23 
 
 Then paid 1.380 00 
 
 5,533 23 
 
 Int. to 16th Jan., '60. 52 00 
 
 1,549 55 
 
 5,585 23 
 Then paid 690 00 
 
 4,895 23 
 Int. to 28th Feb 40 35 
 
 4,935 58 
 Then paid 690 00 
 
 4,245 58 
 Int. to 1st April '61. . 324 02 
 
 i ),.,.. 8._ Do. Draft 5,800 00 
 
 Int. on $1,160, amount 
 
 rec'd 28th Nov., '59 11 13 
 
 5,788 87 
 Paid Nov. 28th, '59. .1,160 00 
 
 4,569 60 
 
 4,628 87 
 Int. to 16th Jan., '60. 34 62 
 
 4,663 49 
 Then paid 580 00 
 
 4,083 49 
 Int. to 28th FeVj 25 85 
 
 Carried forward 4,109 34 13,638 36 
 
39 
 
 Brought forward 4,10D 34 13,638 36 
 
 Then paid 580 00 
 
 3,529 34 
 Int. to 1st April, '61 . . 209 37 
 
 3,798 71 
 
 17,437 07 
 
 Damages 2,650 00 
 
 20,087 o; 
 
 1859. 
 Oct. 28.— Union Bank : 
 
 Draft 5,000 00 
 
 Int. to 29th Nov 29 73 
 
 5,029 73 
 Then paid 950 00 
 
 4,079 73 
 Int. to 18th Jan., '60. 39 12 
 
 4,118 85 
 Then paid 475 00 
 
 3,643 85 
 Int. to 28th Feb 28 65 
 
 3,6 72 50 
 Then paid 475 00 
 
 3,197 50 
 Int. to 1st April, '61 . . 243 44 
 
 3,440 94 
 
 Nov. 12.— Do. Draft 4,500 00 
 
 Int. to 29th Nov 14 67 
 
 4,514 67 
 Then paid 950 00 
 
 3,564 67 
 Int. to 18th Jan., '60. 34 18 
 
 3,600 85 
 Then paid 475 00 
 
 Carried forward S3, 125 85 3,440 94 20,087 0< 
 
40 
 
 Brou-jlit forward 3.125 85 3,440 :)J 20.087 07 
 
 Int. to 2.stli F.I)., 'GO. 24 57 
 
 :1.150 42 
 Then paid 4 75 00 
 
 2,675 42 
 Int. to 1st April, '<J1. . 20.'{ 29 
 
 2..S7S 71 
 
 (i,319 G5 
 Damages 950 00 
 
 1859. 
 Oct. 20. — Bank of Sort/h Carolina: 
 
 Draft 6,500 00 
 
 Int. to 28th Nov 48 61 
 
 6,548 61 
 Then paid .3,500 00 
 
 3,048 61 
 Int. to 18th Jan.. '60. 29 81 
 
 ;i,078 42 
 Then paid l,75o 00 
 
 1,328 42 
 Int. to 1st April, '61 . . Ill 30 
 
 28.— Do. Draft 3,000 '00 
 
 Int. to 20th Feb., '60.. 66 16 
 
 1,439 72 
 
 3,066 16 
 Then paid 1,750 00 
 
 Nov. 7-.— Do. Draft 3,600 00 
 
 Interest 351 42 
 
 1,316 16 
 Int. to 1st April, '61. . 101 97 
 
 1,418 13 
 
 3,951 42 
 
 4,82(» 23 
 
 11,629 50 
 
 Damages 1 ,750 00 
 
 18.— Do. Draft 4,400 00 
 
 Interest 420 23 
 
 7,269 65 
 
 13,379 50 
 
 Carried foi'ward 40,736 22 
 
41 
 
 Brought forward 40,736 22 
 
 Nov. 19. — Conner lS' Co. : 
 
 Draft 3,000 00 
 
 Interest 285 94 
 
 3.28.5 94 
 
 Damages 300 00 
 
 3..i8.j !)4 
 
 1859. 
 Oct. 20. — Fanners^ and Exchange Bank: 
 
 Draft 4.000 00 
 
 Int. to 28tliNov 29 92 
 
 44,322 16 
 
 4,029 92 
 Then paid 3.760 00 
 
 269 92 
 Int. to 1st April, '61. . 25 25 
 
 28.— Do. Draft 2,300 00 
 
 Int. to 18th Jan., '60. 36 17 
 
 295 17 
 
 2,336 17 
 Then paid 1,880 00 
 
 45G 17 
 Int. to 1st April, '61. . 38 22 
 
 494 39 
 
 Nov. 7.— Do. Draft 3,400 00 
 
 Int. to 28th Feb., '60 . 73 68 
 
 3,473 68 
 Then paid 1,880 00 
 
 1,593 68 
 Int. to 1st April, '61. . 120 45 
 
 ll._ Bj. Draft 5,100 00 
 
 Interest 493 93 
 
 1,714 13 
 5,593 93 
 
 4,377 42 
 
 12,475 04 
 
 Damages 1,880 00 
 
 14,355 04 
 
 24.— Do. Draft 4,000 00 
 
 Interest 377 42 
 
 Can-ied forward 58,677 20 
 
42 
 
 Brou^rlit forward 58,677 20 
 
 Oct. 22. — Planters' ami Mechanics' Bank: 
 
 Draft 5,000 00 
 
 Int. to 28th Nov 35 48 
 
 5,035 48 
 Then paid 3,210 00 
 
 1,795 48 
 Int. to 17th Jan.. GO. . 17 20 
 
 1,812 68 
 Then paid 1,620 00 
 
 192 68 
 Int. to 1st April, 'Gl. . 16 18 
 
 1859. 
 Nov. 13.— Do 
 
 Draft 5,000 00 
 
 Interest 482 33 
 
 Dec. 3.— Do. Draft 6,200 00 
 
 Int. to 28th Feb., '60. 103 45 
 
 208 86 
 
 5,482 33 
 
 6,303 45 
 Then paid 1,620 00 
 
 4,683 45 
 Int. to April 1, '61. . . 355 68 
 
 5,039 13 
 
 10,730 32 
 
 Damages 1,620 00 
 
 12,350 32 
 
 Nov. 24. — People's Bank: 
 
 "^ Draft 5,000 00 
 
 Int. to 28th Nov 3 84 
 
 5,003 84 
 Then paid 1,000 00 
 
 4,003 84 
 Int. to 18th Jan., '60.. 39 15 
 
 CaiTied forward 4,042 99 71,027 52 
 
43 
 
 Brought forward 4,042,99 71,027 52 
 
 Then paid 500 00 
 
 3,542 99 
 Int. to 28th Feb 27 85 
 
 3,570 84 
 Then paid 500 00 
 
 3,070 84 
 Int. to 1st April, '01 . . 233 22 
 
 3,304 06 
 
 Damages 500 00 
 
 3,804 06 
 
 74,831 58 
 Acceptances of Wilbur & Price brought down 51,423 46 
 
 $126,255 04 
 
44 
 
 Account Sales of 36 Negroes and Schooner Hettiwan, 
 (embraced in "West Point Mill" purchase). 
 
 Brought forward .^1 7,394 
 
 Charles $ 690 Archy 774 
 
 Thomas 774 Adam 410 
 
 Lewis 800 Kiehard l,o2o 
 
 Charles 800 John L (100 
 
 Natt 1,440 Edward 1,100 
 
 Philip 1,100 John V I,0o0 
 
 Chance 1,200 Jack 120 
 
 Gibby 1,100 CharlesB SaO 
 
 George 575 Tom P :^50 
 
 Caesar 575 Quannino 880 
 
 Charles T 1,700 Tom 11 140 
 
 John 1,850 Tom P 774 
 
 John B 780 June 1,600 
 
 Paul 360 John 900 
 
 David 1,875 Jeffrey 800 
 
 Frank 550 George 500 
 
 Marlboro 400 Gibbey 740 
 
 Sam 825. Henrv 660 
 
 Carried forward... $17, 394 
 
 Gross sales of negroes $30,997 
 
 Sale of schooner Hettiwan 325 
 
 |131,322 
 
 E. 
 
 Assessment of Dower of Widow. < 
 
 Gross receipts by executors, as per their account.$310,028 69 
 Amount of uncollected assets in their hands.... 27,326 64 
 
 Gross value of Estate $337,355 
 
45 
 
 Deduct disbursements on account of 
 mill and expenses of administra- 
 tion S55,188 27 
 
 Also, proceeds of sales Real Estate : 
 
 West Point Mill $97,000 
 
 Dwelling-house 25,000 
 
 Lot on Commercial wbarf 1,825 
 Lot on Palmetto street.... 1,130 
 
 124,955 00 
 
 180,143 27 
 
 Value of personal estate $157,212 06 
 
 Deduct bond debts secured by mort- 
 gage of personalty : 
 Three bonds to Rosa Lucas, Julius 
 Lucas and Lucy Lucas, secured 
 by mortgage of West Point 
 lands, thirt3'-six negroes and 
 schooner. Rateable apportion- 
 ment of debt to negroes and 
 
 schooner $15,988 96 
 
 Bond to Augustus Lucas, secured 
 
 by mortgage of negroes 18,601 24 
 
 . Bond to I. Ball, guardian, secured 
 
 by mortgage of negroes 17,552 39 
 
 Bond to R. DeTreville, secured 
 
 by mortgage of negroes 23,929 44 
 
 76,072 03 
 
 Applicable rateably to mortgages on land and 
 
 unsecured specialty debts $81,140 03 
 
 Proportion of bonds to Rosa, Julius 
 and Lucy Lucas, secured by mort- 
 gage of West Point lands 49,518 70 
 
 Bond to M. M. Lucas, secured by 
 
 mortgage of dwelling-house lands 11,112 50 
 Bond to P. J. Barbot, unsecured.. 2.626 88 
 
 $63,258 08 
 
46 
 
 Brought forward $63,258 08 
 
 Foreign Bills of Excliangc ranked 
 
 as specialty 88,355 04 
 
 Amount of personalty, mortgage debts 
 
 and unsecured specialty 151,013 12 
 
 Per centage of personalty to debts, 53^ 
 
 Bonds secured by mortgages on land 60,631 20 
 
 Rateable apportionment of person- 
 alty to 32,437 69 
 
 2S,1'J8 51 
 
 Proceeds sales of mortgage lands. . 122,000 00 
 Deduct amount appropriated from 
 
 personalty '28,193 51 
 
 Value of mortgage lands subject to 
 
 dower 93,806 49 
 
 Add lands not mortgaged : 
 
 Lot on Commercial wharf 1,825 
 
 Lot on Palmetto street.... 1,130 2,955 00 
 
 Value of unincumbered real estate 96,761 49 
 
 To one-sixth of which, or $16,126 91 
 
 the widow is entitled for her dower. 
 
47 
 
 F. 
 
 SBIPLE CONTRACT CLAIMS 
 
 Presented against estate of Thomas Bennett Lucas, 
 deceased. 
 
 Notes — Interest computed to 1st April, 1861. 
 
 1859. 
 Oct. 13. — Bank of Charleston: 
 
 Note 6,300 00 
 
 Protest 2 00 
 
 Interest 646 39 
 
 6,948 39 
 
 " 18. — Do. Note 4,200 00 
 
 Protest 2 00 
 
 Interest 426 90 
 
 4,628 90 
 
 " 31.— Do. Note 3,800 00 
 
 Protest 2 00 
 
 Interest 376 77 
 
 4,178 77 
 
 Dec. 5. — Do. Note 30,000 00 
 
 Protest 2 00 
 
 Interest 2,773 15 
 
 32,775 15 
 
 48,531 21 
 
 Nov. 3. — Bank of South Carolina: 
 
 Note 5,000 00 
 
 Interest 493 87 
 
 5,493 87 
 
 Dec. 1.— Do. Note 5,000 00 
 
 Interest 466 66 
 
 5,466 66 
 
 10,960 53 
 
 Oct. 21.— People's Bank: 
 
 Note 3,200 00 
 
 Protest 2 00 
 
 Interest 319 71 
 
 3,521 71 
 
 " 28.— Do. Note * 5,000 00 
 
 Protest 2 00 
 
 Interest 483 1 7 
 
 • 5,485 17 
 
 9,006 88 
 
 Amount carried forward S68,498 62 
 
48 
 
 Amount brought forward 
 
 Nov. 10.— Bank of the State: 
 
 Note 2,800 00 
 
 Protest 2 03 
 
 Interest 271 71 
 
 S68,498 62 
 
 " 1 5. — Estate of H. Mompoey : 
 
 Note 800 00 
 
 Interest 76 87 
 
 Do. Note 2,200 00 
 
 Interest 222 38 
 
 876 87 
 
 2,411 38 
 
 3,073 74 
 
 1859. 
 Dec. 24. — Estate of Francoise Perrier : 
 
 Note 
 
 Interest six per cent. 
 
 Oct. 12.— F. C. Blum cV Son: 
 
 Note 
 
 Interest 
 
 April 4. — Dr. Elias Horlheck. 
 
 Note 
 
 Interest . 
 
 Nov. 1. — Mills, Beach ^' Co.: 
 
 Note 
 
 Protest . . 
 Interest . . 
 
 1860. 
 Jan. 28.— TF. /. Bemxett: 
 
 Note 
 
 Interest 
 
 1859. 
 Mar. 19.— H. W. Conner &- Co.: 
 
 Mem. Check 3,000 00 
 
 Interest 426 90 
 
 3,000 
 
 00 
 
 222 
 
 98 
 
 2,203 
 
 78 
 
 235 
 
 34 
 
 1,467 
 
 06 
 
 204 
 
 26 
 
 979 
 
 55 
 
 2 
 
 00 
 
 96 
 
 93 
 
 1,412 
 
 59 
 
 115 
 
 6S 
 
 3,288 25 
 
 3,222 98 
 
 2,529 12 
 
 1,071 32 
 
 1,078 48 
 
 1,528 2: 
 
 " 25.— Do. Mem. Check 3,000 00 
 
 Interest 423 45 
 
 3,426 90 
 
 3,423 45 
 
 6,850 35 
 
 Amount carried forward $91,741 13 
 
49 
 
 Amount brou{j;l>t forward SOI ,741 1 3 
 
 18G0. 
 Jan. 10. — Frederick lik'har(h: 
 
 Acceptance of bill 61f) 97 
 
 Interest 57 68 
 
 733 6.^ 
 
 1 85!). 
 Oct. G. — Planters' ant! Mechnnicf:' Bank : 
 
 Note 3,300 00 
 
 Interest 342 39 
 
 3,()42 39 
 
 u 1 2.— Do. Note 6,000 00 
 
 Interest 615 62 
 
 6,615 62 
 
 " 1 7.— Do. Note 950 00 
 
 Interest 96 56 
 
 1,046 56 
 
 Nov. 3.— Do. Note 10,500 00 
 
 Interest 1,035 04 
 
 11,535 04 
 
 Oct. 11.— Do. Note 1,500 00 
 
 Interest 154 19 
 
 1,654 19 
 
 — 24,493 80 
 
 " 21. — Farmer.^' and lixchamje Bank : 
 
 Note 10,000 00 
 
 Protest 2 00 ** 
 
 Interest 1,008 77 
 
 11,010 77 
 
 Dec. 7.— Do. Note 4,000 00 
 
 Protest 2 00 
 
 Interest 368 22 
 
 4,370 22 
 
 15,380 99 
 
 $132,349 57 
 4 
 
.')() 
 
 CLAIMS. 
 
 O'llear, Ropor & Stoney $ir),(iG7 88 
 
 Cameron & Co 4,(515 05 
 
 Ravciiel & Co 4,500 00 
 
 Robertson, Blaeklock & Co 1,471 41 
 
 kobcrt. Jordan 1,1<»S 34 
 
 Ain^er & Bee 1,55(5 1)1 
 
 S. Z. Pitcher '. IKil 54 
 
 K. & W. C. IIorll>eek.. (540 (54 
 
 Henry Bnist 080 71 
 
 Estate of J. Charles Blum 552 05 
 
 Hill & Smith 503 98 
 
 F. C. Blum c^ Son 403 01 
 
 Macbetli & Buist 370 00 
 
 Lucas & Stroheckcr 305 84 
 
 J. B. Duval & Son 357 97 
 
 Carnialt & lii-iggs 342 54 
 
 Klinck, Wicke"nberg&Co 258 05 
 
 J. U. Boesch 2o9 57 
 
 L. M. Hatch 228 30 
 
 James Moore 219 33 
 
 .feiinino-s, Thomlinson & Co 198 00 
 
 Mills, i3each & Co 197 02 
 
 llayclen&Whilden : 193 50 
 
 F. i). C. Krackc 189 8(5 
 
 N"ayler, Smith .t Co 108 96 
 
 James McLaren '. 100 55 
 
 S. N. Hart& Co 135 64r 
 
 James B. Campbell 101 31 
 
 Thayer, Brigliam k Field 119 41 
 
 Bashiba Smith 11(5 00 
 
 William Ravenel Ill 00 
 
 Robert Adger & Co 80 2a 
 
 C. IL West & Son 82 51 
 
 Graveley & Pringle *. 78 89 
 
 C. F. Colson 69 77 
 
 St. Paul's Church 68 64 
 
 Stoney & Wiltberger • 61 44 
 
51 
 
 A. F. Tronche 59 51 
 
 James McConkey ■ 59 00 
 
 Matthiesaen, O'Hara&Oo 53 37 
 
 Commercial Wharves 50 12 
 
 Walker, Evans & Co 39 55 
 
 Dr. William T. Wragg 38 00 
 
 ITeiiry Clark 35 57 
 
 ir. F. Baker & C^) 31 00 
 
 B.Ford 29 00 
 
 Mount Pleasant Ferry Company 28 00 
 
 Adger's Wliarf 27 28 
 
 John Boniiell 26 64 
 
 Edgerton, Richards & Co 25 13 
 
 Land)erts & JLowell 24 00 
 
 William Scott 19 25 
 
 C. Amme 10 00 
 
 Robert Jenney 17 75 
 
 Ravenel & Co 14 81 
 
 Ilorton & Shepherd 14 (56 
 
 Thomas Kenney 13 69 
 
 Hugh F.Vincent 13 60 
 
 Vanderhorst Wharf.... 12 32 
 
 A. & R. B. McKenzie 9 00 
 
 F. M. Jones 8 25 
 
 Alva Gage & Co 6 56 
 
 Benjamin P. Bicaise 5 81 
 
 Richon k Travers ^ 5 00 
 
 George W. Olney 4 75 
 
 John McKeegan 4 50 
 
 David Landreth & Co 2 50 
 
 W. J. Bennett 108 67 
 
 38,095 34 
 Amount of Notes brought forward 132,349 57 
 
 170,444 91 
 Claim of Children, ranked as simple contract.. . 2,400 44 
 
 $172,845 35 
 
1^«<T^ 
 
23171