Darby v. Huffman

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Darby v. Huffman

31 S.C.L. 532

DecidedMay 15, 1846

StatusPublished

This text of 31 S.C.L. 532 (Darby v. Huffman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Darby v. Huffman, 31 S.C.L. 532 (S.C. Ct. App. 1846).

Pincite

Opinion

Curia, per Evans, J.

Where evidence of the contents of a deed or other writing is offered, it seems that, by the rules of the common law, there must be proof of the existence and loss of the original; but where the deed has been proved and recorded, there is no necessity to offer any evidence but of the loss of the original in order to admit the record or an office copy, under our Act of 1731, 3 Stat. 303. This has been fully adjudged and decided by the case of Dingle vs. Bowman, 1 McC. 177, and the case of McLeod vs. Rogers and Gardner,

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

Curia, per Evans, J.

Where evidence of the contents of a deed or other writing is offered, it seems that, by the rules of the common law, there must be proof of the existence and loss of the original; but where the deed has been proved and recorded, there is no necessity to offer any evidence but of the loss of the original in order to admit the record or an office copy, under our Act of 1731, 3 Stat. 303. This has been fully adjudged and decided by the case of Dingle vs. Bowman, 1 McC. 177, and the case of McLeod vs. Rogers and Gardner,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 S.C.L. 532, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/darby-v-huffman-scctapp-1846.