Anderson v. Solomon

9 S.C.L. 329
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedMay 15, 1818
StatusPublished

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.

Bluebook
Anderson v. Solomon, 9 S.C.L. 329 (S.C. 1818).

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Gantt.

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.

Grimke, Colcoclc, JVott, Cheves, and Johnson¿ J. concurred.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
9 S.C.L. 329, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-solomon-sc-1818.