Barton v. Administrators of Dunlap

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Barton v. Administrators of Dunlap

9 S.C.L. 140

DecidedMay 15, 1818

StatusPublished

This text of 9 S.C.L. 140 (Barton v. Administrators of Dunlap) 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

Barton v. Administrators of Dunlap, 9 S.C.L. 140 (S.C. 1818).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Cheyes.

[142]*142I am of opinion, the evidence of a mistake * .... given by the plaintiff is in itself too vague and uncertain to countervail the receipts in full, the fairness and accuracy of which are testified by a witness of credibility and intelligence, and which ought the more especially to be final, as vouchers and documents were destroyed in consequence of the interchange of discharges: besides, the witness who was present ánd assisted, is ignorant of the fact, which is little more than suggested by the plaintiff’s witness. I also think, that the admission of proof on the subject of a mistake, when there was no notice of it on the pleadings, or in the plaintiff’s particular, was necessarily a surprise on the defendants, and ought not to have been suffered. I am, therefore, of opinion a new trial ought to be granted.

Grimké, Colcoclc, Gantt, and Johnson, J. concurred.

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

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Cheyes.

[142]*142I am of opinion, the evidence of a mistake * .... given by the plaintiff is in itself too vague and uncertain to countervail the receipts in full, the fairness and accuracy of which are testified by a witness of credibility and intelligence, and which ought the more especially to be final, as vouchers and documents were destroyed in consequence of the interchange of discharges: besides, the witness who was present ánd assisted, is ignorant of the fact, which is little more than suggested by the plaintiff’s witness. I also think, that the admission of proof on the subject of a mistake, when there was no notice of it on the pleadings, or in the plaintiff’s particular, was necessarily a surprise on the defendants, and ought not to have been suffered. I am, therefore, of opinion a new trial ought to be granted.

Grimké, Colcoclc, Gantt, and Johnson, J. concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 S.C.L. 140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barton-v-administrators-of-dunlap-sc-1818.