Durant v. Staggers

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Durant v. Staggers

2 Nott & McC. 488, 11 S.C.L. 488

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedMay 15, 1820

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2 Nott & McC. 488 (Durant v. Staggers) 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

Durant v. Staggers, 2 Nott & McC. 488, 11 S.C.L. 488 (S.C. 1820).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Gantt, J.

It was incumbent on the garnishee to have appealed from the decision made in March Term, 1818, if he had been dissatisfied with *4891 corl'ectness, but he acquiesced *in it, and it is neither usual nor J correct for a succeeding judge to rescind the orders made by those who have preceded him.¹ The proper and established practice is to appeal in such cases wheze the decisions made are supposed not conformable to law.²

Here the garnishee had all that the attachment law required, a copy writ and notice to make his return; and although the proceeding was not strictly conformable to the Attachment Act, yet it was substantially so; and it is too late, after so long an acquiescence in the first order, for the garnishee to complain.³

The Court are of opinion, that the decision of the judge, allowing the plaintiff leave to enter up his judgment, was correct and legal; and that the motion to reverse the same must fail.

Bay, Hott, Johnson and HttgeR, JJ., concurred.

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

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Gantt, J.

It was incumbent on the garnishee to have appealed from the decision made in March Term, 1818, if he had been dissatisfied with *4891 corl'ectness, but he acquiesced *in it, and it is neither usual nor J correct for a succeeding judge to rescind the orders made by those who have preceded him.¹ The proper and established practice is to appeal in such cases wheze the decisions made are supposed not conformable to law.²

Here the garnishee had all that the attachment law required, a copy writ and notice to make his return; and although the proceeding was not strictly conformable to the Attachment Act, yet it was substantially so; and it is too late, after so long an acquiescence in the first order, for the garnishee to complain.³

The Court are of opinion, that the decision of the judge, allowing the plaintiff leave to enter up his judgment, was correct and legal; and that the motion to reverse the same must fail.

Bay, Hott, Johnson and HttgeR, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Nott & McC. 488, 11 S.C.L. 488, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/durant-v-staggers-sc-1820.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack