Bacon v. Smith

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Bacon v. Smith

3 S.C.L. 426

DecidedMay 15, 1804

StatusPublished

This text of 3 S.C.L. 426 (Bacon v. Smith) 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

Bacon v. Smith, 3 S.C.L. 426 (S.C. 1804).

Pincite

Opinion

By the court.

It may be necessary sometimes to inquire, and see whether ¡he agent, or attorney, of an absent, and foreign plaintiff, is legally authorized t*> sue in the name of the plaintiff. This may be done, where it is shewn, or suggested, that the suit is brought, or prosecuted, without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiff himself: and the action may, in doubtful cases, be suspended until the truth is known. But the proof of the power, or appointment of the agent, is never required to be made according to those strict rules of evidence, which apply in other cases. And the want of such satisfactory proof as shall clearly shew that the agent is authorized, is never to be taken advantage of at the trial by way of nonsuit. It ought to be on a rule to shew cause why the action should not be dismissed. In this case the proof of authority seems to have been, prima jade at least, sufficient.

Motion overruled.

Present, Trezevant, and Brevard. Justices.

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

By the court.

It may be necessary sometimes to inquire, and see whether ¡he agent, or attorney, of an absent, and foreign plaintiff, is legally authorized t*> sue in the name of the plaintiff. This may be done, where it is shewn, or suggested, that the suit is brought, or prosecuted, without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiff himself: and the action may, in doubtful cases, be suspended until the truth is known. But the proof of the power, or appointment of the agent, is never required to be made according to those strict rules of evidence, which apply in other cases. And the want of such satisfactory proof as shall clearly shew that the agent is authorized, is never to be taken advantage of at the trial by way of nonsuit. It ought to be on a rule to shew cause why the action should not be dismissed. In this case the proof of authority seems to have been, prima jade at least, sufficient.

Motion overruled.

Present, Trezevant, and Brevard. Justices.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 S.C.L. 426, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bacon-v-smith-sc-1804.