Bennet v. M'Fall

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Bennet v. M'Fall

9 S.C.L. 198

DecidedMay 15, 1818

StatusPublished

This text of 9 S.C.L. 198 (Bennet v. M'Fall) 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

Bennet v. M'Fall, 9 S.C.L. 198 (S.C. 1818).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Colcocic.

There can be no principle of law produced in support of this action. The demand was not negotiable in its nature, and the present defendant is to be considered as the agent of Holland, by whose authority he brought the first action The principal is answerable for the acts of his agent; but not the agent for those of his principal. If [199]*199M'-Fall had not sued the plaintiff, Holland would have done so. No injury, then, has resulted to JBennet from the acts of M-Fall alone, and of course no responsibility can attach to him. The motion is rejected.

Grimke, JYott, 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 Colcocic.

There can be no principle of law produced in support of this action. The demand was not negotiable in its nature, and the present defendant is to be considered as the agent of Holland, by whose authority he brought the first action The principal is answerable for the acts of his agent; but not the agent for those of his principal. If [199]*199M'-Fall had not sued the plaintiff, Holland would have done so. No injury, then, has resulted to JBennet from the acts of M-Fall alone, and of course no responsibility can attach to him. The motion is rejected.

Grimke, JYott, and Johnson, J. concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 S.C.L. 198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bennet-v-mfall-sc-1818.