Commissioners of the Treasury v. Securities of Neuby

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Commissioners of the Treasury v. Securities of Neuby

12 S.C.L. 184

DecidedMay 15, 1821

StatusPublished

This text of 12 S.C.L. 184 (Commissioners of the Treasury v. Securities of Neuby) 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

Commissioners of the Treasury v. Securities of Neuby, 12 S.C.L. 184 (S.C. 1821).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Richardson

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The construction of the act, though not obvious at first [185]*185slight, is plain, upon inspection. The first provision is that before the security shall be sued, in any case, the principal shall, in some case, have been pursued to insolvency, (the insolvency to be evidenced by a veturn of nulla bona.)

McDuffie, for the motion. McCravén, contra.

The second is, if the principal shall have been pursued to insolvency in a given case, then the security, if sued, in that particular casé, shall not be entitled to an imparlance. And the reason arising out of ihe state of facts comports with the literal distinction between the two provisions.— The former is to prevent a security from being harrassed, while his principal may be solvent, and may himself discharge the claim. The latter is to save the creditor from Unnecessary delays, if he should sue the securities after his fclaim has been made unquestionable and precise, by actual recovery had against the principal; and after the principal has been moreover pursued to insolvency.

The motion is therefore granted,

Justices Gantt, Johnson, Nott and Colcock, concurred.

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

Mr. Justice Richardson

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The construction of the act, though not obvious at first [185]*185slight, is plain, upon inspection. The first provision is that before the security shall be sued, in any case, the principal shall, in some case, have been pursued to insolvency, (the insolvency to be evidenced by a veturn of nulla bona.)

McDuffie, for the motion. McCravén, contra.

The second is, if the principal shall have been pursued to insolvency in a given case, then the security, if sued, in that particular casé, shall not be entitled to an imparlance. And the reason arising out of ihe state of facts comports with the literal distinction between the two provisions.— The former is to prevent a security from being harrassed, while his principal may be solvent, and may himself discharge the claim. The latter is to save the creditor from Unnecessary delays, if he should sue the securities after his fclaim has been made unquestionable and precise, by actual recovery had against the principal; and after the principal has been moreover pursued to insolvency.

The motion is therefore granted,

Justices Gantt, Johnson, Nott and Colcock, concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 S.C.L. 184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commissioners-of-the-treasury-v-securities-of-neuby-sc-1821.