Courtois v. Perquier

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Courtois v. Perquier

3 S.C.L. 314

DecidedJanuary 15, 1804

StatusPublished

This text of 3 S.C.L. 314 (Courtois v. Perquier) 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

Courtois v. Perquier, 3 S.C.L. 314 (S.C. 1804).

Pincite

Opinion

The court, after hearing argument by Gaillard, for the motion, and Bailey, contra, were of opinion, that the undertaking of defendant was direct, and not collateral, and made upon sufficient consideration ; and, being for a sum certain, was good and effectual [315]*315to bind him to a peiformance; and, therefore, refused a new trial. See 9 Co. 93, Bane’s case.

Present, Johnson, Trezevant, and Brevard, Justices,

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

The court, after hearing argument by Gaillard, for the motion, and Bailey, contra, were of opinion, that the undertaking of defendant was direct, and not collateral, and made upon sufficient consideration ; and, being for a sum certain, was good and effectual [315]*315to bind him to a peiformance; and, therefore, refused a new trial. See 9 Co. 93, Bane’s case.

Present, Johnson, Trezevant, and Brevard, Justices,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 S.C.L. 314, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/courtois-v-perquier-sc-1804.