Briggs v. Executors of Starke

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Briggs v. Executors of Starke

9 S.C.L. 111

DecidedMay 15, 1818

StatusPublished

This text of 9 S.C.L. 111 (Briggs v. Executors of Starke) 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

Briggs v. Executors of Starke, 9 S.C.L. 111 (S.C. 1818).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Nott.

A motion is made to set aside the. verdict in this case, on the ground, “ that the promise of one executor is not sufficient to take a demand out of the statute of limitations, nor to prevent it from, running against it.”

Where several are bound, jointly and severally, in a note or other undertaking, if a joint action is brought against all, and they plead the statute of limitations, proof of a promise by one, within six years, will support the action, notwithstanding it was formerly held otherwise. (1 Espenasse, 150. Douglass, 629, Whitcomb vs. Whiting.) The same principle will apply to executors. The statute of frauds exempts them from liability, on any promise, to pay out of their own estates, unless the promise is in writing. But that statute does not embrace this [112]*112case. It is to be inferred, therefore, that in other cases their promises shall bind them; otherwise the statute was unnecessary. The motion for a new trial must be refused.

Grimke, Colcock, Cheves, and Johnson, J. concurred. Gantt, J. dissented,

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 Nott.

A motion is made to set aside the. verdict in this case, on the ground, “ that the promise of one executor is not sufficient to take a demand out of the statute of limitations, nor to prevent it from, running against it.”

Where several are bound, jointly and severally, in a note or other undertaking, if a joint action is brought against all, and they plead the statute of limitations, proof of a promise by one, within six years, will support the action, notwithstanding it was formerly held otherwise. (1 Espenasse, 150. Douglass, 629, Whitcomb vs. Whiting.) The same principle will apply to executors. The statute of frauds exempts them from liability, on any promise, to pay out of their own estates, unless the promise is in writing. But that statute does not embrace this [112]*112case. It is to be inferred, therefore, that in other cases their promises shall bind them; otherwise the statute was unnecessary. The motion for a new trial must be refused.

Grimke, Colcock, Cheves, and Johnson, J. concurred. Gantt, J. dissented,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 S.C.L. 111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/briggs-v-executors-of-starke-sc-1818.