Davis v. Verdier

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Davis v. Verdier

12 S.C.L. 320

DecidedMay 15, 1821

StatusPublished

This text of 12 S.C.L. 320 (Davis v. Verdier) 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

Davis v. Verdier, 12 S.C.L. 320 (S.C. 1821).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Gantt

delivered the opinion of the court.

It appears from the evidence, that when Smyth, the Ugent of Davis, the plaintiff, demanded payment of the account from the defendant, the four years had not expired, and that the present action was instituted within four years from that time. The defendant said he had paid the account, and would produce the evidence of the fact to the agent. Had the case been barred before by the- lapse of time,this acknowledgment would have been sufficient to take the case but of the statute relied on. But here the statute does not apply; the case never was barred. The defendant omitted to produce the evidence of payment at any time, either before or at the trial. The court are of [322]*322opinion that the statute of limitations cannot avail the defendant, and that the decree was justified by the evidence which the trial furnished, and the law arising thereon.

Justices Bay, Nott, Cohock, Johnson and Richardson, concurred.

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

Mr. Justice Gantt

delivered the opinion of the court.

It appears from the evidence, that when Smyth, the Ugent of Davis, the plaintiff, demanded payment of the account from the defendant, the four years had not expired, and that the present action was instituted within four years from that time. The defendant said he had paid the account, and would produce the evidence of the fact to the agent. Had the case been barred before by the- lapse of time,this acknowledgment would have been sufficient to take the case but of the statute relied on. But here the statute does not apply; the case never was barred. The defendant omitted to produce the evidence of payment at any time, either before or at the trial. The court are of [322]*322opinion that the statute of limitations cannot avail the defendant, and that the decree was justified by the evidence which the trial furnished, and the law arising thereon.

Justices Bay, Nott, Cohock, Johnson and Richardson, concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 S.C.L. 320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-verdier-sc-1821.