Anderson v. Solomon
This text of 9 S.C.L. 329 (Anderson v. Solomon) 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.
Opinion
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Assumpsit cannot be supported, when there has been an express contract under seal, as in the present case, but the action must be, in such case, debt or covenant. It is also a rule that when a bond, or other security under seal, has been accepted in satisfaction of a simple contract, the latter is merged in such higher security ; and assumpsit is not sustainable. (See first Chitty’s Pleading, 94, 5, 6, and the authorities there referred to: also, Cro. Jac. 505. 2 Bacon Ab. 67. 3 Blacks. Com. 158. 3 Comyn’s Digest, 263.)
[330]*330I am of opinion the motion for a nonsuit should r prevail, the action of assumpsit not having been the proper remedy on an express warranty by deed, but that the action should have been covenant.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
9 S.C.L. 329, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-solomon-sc-1818.