Courtois v. Perquier

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Courtois v. Perquier

3 S.C.L. 314

Supreme Court of South Carolina·Decided January 15, 1804·Published

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,

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

Pincite

3 S.C.L. 314 (Courtois v. Perquier) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.