Darby v. Executors of Hunt

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Darby v. Executors of Hunt

5 S.C.L. 541

Supreme Court of South Carolina·Decided November 15, 1815·Published

Opinion

Nott, J.

The court must judge of the validity of this bond, from the instrument itself. If it is not good on the face of it, parol evidence could not make it so, and ought not to have been admitted.. It appears to me so erroneous, both in form and substance, that there can be no doubt about it. It requires the party to appear at the Court of Common Pleas, at Union Court House, at a time when there was no court sitting, to answer to B. H. Saxon in a bill in equity, a subject over which the court had not control, and for a [543]*543purpose which the process did not require, even in the court of equity. The nonsuit, therefore, was well ordered, and ought not to be set aside.

Grimke, Brevard, Smith, Colcock, and Bay, Js., concurred.

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

Nott, J.

The court must judge of the validity of this bond, from the instrument itself. If it is not good on the face of it, parol evidence could not make it so, and ought not to have been admitted.. It appears to me so erroneous, both in form and substance, that there can be no doubt about it. It requires the party to appear at the Court of Common Pleas, at Union Court House, at a time when there was no court sitting, to answer to B. H. Saxon in a bill in equity, a subject over which the court had not control, and for a [543]*543purpose which the process did not require, even in the court of equity. The nonsuit, therefore, was well ordered, and ought not to be set aside.

Grimke, Brevard, Smith, Colcock, and Bay, Js., concurred.

Darby v. Executors of Hunt, 5 S.C.L. 541 (S.C. 1815).

Pincite

5 S.C.L. 541 (Darby v. Executors of Hunt) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.