Alexander v. Adams

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Alexander v. Adams

32 S.C.L. 47

DecidedDecember 15, 1846

StatusPublished

This text of 32 S.C.L. 47 (Alexander v. Adams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alexander v. Adams, 32 S.C.L. 47 (S.C. Ct. App. 1846).

Pincite

Opinion

Evans, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The presiding Judge was satisfied with the sufficiency of the evidence that the money arising from the notes in Mr. Wright’s hands for collection, were appropriated to pay the debt due to Barnett, and this Court is well satisfied with his conclusion. If Mr. Wright had been the attorney of Crockett alone, what passed between them might be a mere direction of Crockett to [48]*48his agent, as to application of the money, which would be revocable. But Mr. Wright was the attorney of Barnett also, and the appropriation was made to him in that capacity. It was therefore not a direction merely, but an actual appropriation of the fund, or a verbal assignment which placed it beyond the subsequent control of Crockett, and which lie could not revoke by his assignment to the plaintiff.

The motion is therefore dismissed.

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

Evans, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The presiding Judge was satisfied with the sufficiency of the evidence that the money arising from the notes in Mr. Wright’s hands for collection, were appropriated to pay the debt due to Barnett, and this Court is well satisfied with his conclusion. If Mr. Wright had been the attorney of Crockett alone, what passed between them might be a mere direction of Crockett to [48]*48his agent, as to application of the money, which would be revocable. But Mr. Wright was the attorney of Barnett also, and the appropriation was made to him in that capacity. It was therefore not a direction merely, but an actual appropriation of the fund, or a verbal assignment which placed it beyond the subsequent control of Crockett, and which lie could not revoke by his assignment to the plaintiff.

The motion is therefore dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 S.C.L. 47, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alexander-v-adams-scctapp-1846.