Carwile v. Harvey

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Carwile v. Harvey

49 S.C.L. 314

DecidedMay 15, 1868

StatusPublished

This text of 49 S.C.L. 314 (Carwile v. Harvey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carwile v. Harvey, 49 S.C.L. 314 (S.C. Ct. App. 1868).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

DUNKiN, C. J.

The presiding Judge reports that the plaintiff sued on a bond dated 5th November, 1860, with a condition to pay nine hundred and forty-eight dollars and seventy cents, twelve months after date, with interest from January 1st, 1861. The consideration of the bond was to secure the purchase-money of a tract of land sold by the Commissioner in Equity. No evidence was offered by the defendant. The jury, contrary to the charge of the presiding Judge, found for the plaintiff a verdict of three hundred and fifty-six dollars and fifty-two cents, being one-fourth of the principal and interest due on the bond.

A motion for a new trial is submitted on the ground that the verdict is in violation of law and against the evidence.

The motion is granted. See Carmichael vs. Buck, (12 Rich. 460.)

Wardlaw and Istglis, A. JJ., concurred.

Motion granted.

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

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

DUNKiN, C. J.

The presiding Judge reports that the plaintiff sued on a bond dated 5th November, 1860, with a condition to pay nine hundred and forty-eight dollars and seventy cents, twelve months after date, with interest from January 1st, 1861. The consideration of the bond was to secure the purchase-money of a tract of land sold by the Commissioner in Equity. No evidence was offered by the defendant. The jury, contrary to the charge of the presiding Judge, found for the plaintiff a verdict of three hundred and fifty-six dollars and fifty-two cents, being one-fourth of the principal and interest due on the bond.

A motion for a new trial is submitted on the ground that the verdict is in violation of law and against the evidence.

The motion is granted. See Carmichael vs. Buck, (12 Rich. 460.)

Wardlaw and Istglis, A. JJ., concurred.

Motion granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 S.C.L. 314, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carwile-v-harvey-scctapp-1868.