Cantey v. Sumter

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Cantey v. Sumter

3 S.C.L. 17

DecidedDecember 15, 1796

StatusPublished

This text of 3 S.C.L. 17 (Cantey v. Sumter) 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

Cantey v. Sumter, 3 S.C.L. 17 (S.C. 1796).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion for a new trial. The action was debt on bond, sued in the name of the original obligee, who had assigned it, before th© commencement of this'action, to one Smith, who had also assigned it over to another person, the real plaintiff. At the trial, the defendant’s counsel offered the nominal plaintiff, as a witness, to prove payment of part of the debt to himself, which was refused. On this ground’ the application was made for a new trial; but the court refused to grant if.

'Note. — See Walton v. Shelley, 1 T. R. 296, A witness'éanñot impeach a so’! curity which he has given;’ but this rule is confined to commercial instruments. [And the whole doctrine has been exploded in this State, vide Knight v. Packard, 3 M‘C. 71. In the principal case, there was another, and an irresistible, objection, to the admissibility of the witness, to wit', that lie was a’party on the record. 3 M‘C.75.]

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

Motion for a new trial. The action was debt on bond, sued in the name of the original obligee, who had assigned it, before th© commencement of this'action, to one Smith, who had also assigned it over to another person, the real plaintiff. At the trial, the defendant’s counsel offered the nominal plaintiff, as a witness, to prove payment of part of the debt to himself, which was refused. On this ground’ the application was made for a new trial; but the court refused to grant if.

'Note. — See Walton v. Shelley, 1 T. R. 296, A witness'éanñot impeach a so’! curity which he has given;’ but this rule is confined to commercial instruments. [And the whole doctrine has been exploded in this State, vide Knight v. Packard, 3 M‘C. 71. In the principal case, there was another, and an irresistible, objection, to the admissibility of the witness, to wit', that lie was a’party on the record. 3 M‘C.75.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 S.C.L. 17, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cantey-v-sumter-sc-1796.