Caruth v. Allen

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Caruth v. Allen

13 S.C.L. 226

DecidedNovember 15, 1822

StatusPublished

This text of 13 S.C.L. 226 (Caruth v. Allen) 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

Caruth v. Allen, 13 S.C.L. 226 (S.C. 1822).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Nott

delivered the opinion of the court:

This court is satisfied with the directions given to the jury by the presiding judge in the court below. In the case of Singleton 8? Millet, fl Nott <§• McCord, 355,J the court, speaking of the plea of liberum tenementum. gays, “the plea admits the possession and the trespass charged in the plaintiff’s pleadings.” If therefore the plea admits the possession and the trespass, the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict — he ought not indeed to have recovered any thing more than nominal damages, perhaps not enough to have carried the costs; and that perhaps in any other form of action, would have been a good cause for not granting a new trial; but the verdict in this case establishes the right of the land in the defendant, when in. fact he failed to support his plea.

The motion therefore must be granted.

Justices Gantt, Richardson and Colcoch, concurred*

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

Mr. Justice Nott

delivered the opinion of the court:

This court is satisfied with the directions given to the jury by the presiding judge in the court below. In the case of Singleton 8? Millet, fl Nott <§• McCord, 355,J the court, speaking of the plea of liberum tenementum. gays, “the plea admits the possession and the trespass charged in the plaintiff’s pleadings.” If therefore the plea admits the possession and the trespass, the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict — he ought not indeed to have recovered any thing more than nominal damages, perhaps not enough to have carried the costs; and that perhaps in any other form of action, would have been a good cause for not granting a new trial; but the verdict in this case establishes the right of the land in the defendant, when in. fact he failed to support his plea.

The motion therefore must be granted.

Justices Gantt, Richardson and Colcoch, concurred*

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 S.C.L. 226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caruth-v-allen-sc-1822.