Brooks v. Lowrie

10 S.C.L. 342
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedNovember 15, 1818
StatusPublished

This text of 10 S.C.L. 342 (Brooks v. Lowrie) 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
Brooks v. Lowrie, 10 S.C.L. 342 (S.C. 1818).

Opinion

The opinion of the Oourt was delivered by

Silliman, for the motion. Levy, contra.

Nott, J.

When the motion for a nonsuit was made on the circuit, the specific variance, which is now relied on between the.contract and declaration, was not pointed out by the counsel, nor observed by the Court; and I was surprised, when the case came into this Court, to find that the whole consideration had not been set out in the declaration. For nothing is more clear than, that the whole of the consideration of a contract must be stated, and if any part of an entire consideration, or of a consideration, consisting of several things, be omitted, the *plaintiff will fail on the ground of variance. 1 Chitty on Pleadings, 295. If a part of the consideration be frivolous, it may be omitted without prejudice; but the part omitted in this case formed an important feature in the case.

The Court is not disposed however to grant a nonsuit; but the defendant may have a new trial, and the plaintiff may amend his declaration, upon payment of costs.

Colcock, Cheyes, Gantt and Johnson, JJ., concurred.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
10 S.C.L. 342, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brooks-v-lowrie-sc-1818.