Bayley v. Skirving

Court of Chancery of South Carolina

Bayley v. Skirving

6 Rec. Co. Ch. (S.C.) 612

Court of Chancery of South Carolina·Decided April 24, 1773·Published

Opinion

It appearing to me that the Defendant James Skirving is not in Contempt and. that the Time for his answering pursuant to the Rule obtained [613]*613for that Purpose is not expired, It is Ordered on Motion of Mr. Rutledge Sollicitor for the said Defendant, who lives above Twenty Miles from Charles Town, that the said Defendant be allowed a Fortnight’s Time from this Day, to plead, answer or demur to the Complainants Bill, and that a Commission do issue to take such Plea Answer or Demurrer.

Filed 24. April 1773.

Wm Burrows Master in Chancery

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

It appearing to me that the Defendant James Skirving is not in Contempt and. that the Time for his answering pursuant to the Rule obtained [613]*613for that Purpose is not expired, It is Ordered on Motion of Mr. Rutledge Sollicitor for the said Defendant, who lives above Twenty Miles from Charles Town, that the said Defendant be allowed a Fortnight’s Time from this Day, to plead, answer or demur to the Complainants Bill, and that a Commission do issue to take such Plea Answer or Demurrer.

Filed 24. April 1773.

Wm Burrows Master in Chancery

Bayley v. Skirving, 6 Rec. Co. Ch. (S.C.) 612 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1773).

Pincite

6 Rec. Co. Ch. (S.C.) 612 (Bayley v. Skirving) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.