Clarkson v. Cantey

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Clarkson v. Cantey

16 S.C.L. 312

DecidedMarch 15, 1824

StatusPublished

This text of 16 S.C.L. 312 (Clarkson v. Cantey) 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

Clarkson v. Cantey, 16 S.C.L. 312 (S.C. 1824).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Huger.

The legislature in allowing interest on all judgments, intended to furnish an inducement to judgment creditors to indulge their debtors. This inducement would be much diminished, if the interest as well as principal were not secured by the judgment. The subsequent judgment creditor is not placed in. a worse situation by allowing interest, (which is only an equivalent for the use of the principal) than he would be if the senior execution were enforced as soon as lodged; a result which would generally follow, if the interest as well as principal were not secured by the judgment. In similar cases interest has never been separated from principal. The motion is refused.

Mott, Johnson, Richardson, and Ganit, Justices, concurred.

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 Huger.

The legislature in allowing interest on all judgments, intended to furnish an inducement to judgment creditors to indulge their debtors. This inducement would be much diminished, if the interest as well as principal were not secured by the judgment. The subsequent judgment creditor is not placed in. a worse situation by allowing interest, (which is only an equivalent for the use of the principal) than he would be if the senior execution were enforced as soon as lodged; a result which would generally follow, if the interest as well as principal were not secured by the judgment. In similar cases interest has never been separated from principal. The motion is refused.

Mott, Johnson, Richardson, and Ganit, Justices, concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 S.C.L. 312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clarkson-v-cantey-sc-1824.