Evans v. Hinds

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Evans v. Hinds

26 S.C.L. 490

DecidedJuly 1, 1835

StatusPublished

This text of 26 S.C.L. 490 (Evans v. Hinds) 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

Evans v. Hinds, 26 S.C.L. 490 (S.C. Ct. App. 1835).

Pincite

Opinion

Curia, per

O’Neall, J.

The first ground is fatal to the plaintiff’s action. For until the judgment was produced, or its existence and loss proved, the plaintiff could take nothing from his purchase at sheriff’s sale. The evidence clearly shows that no judgment in fact ever existed, and hence it follows that the execution and sale under it, were alike unauthorized and wrongful. The case of McCall vs. Boatwright, (2 Hill, 438,) cannot be distinguished from this, and its authority supercedes the necessity of argument or investigation.

The motion for nonsuit is granted.

Johnson and Harper, JJ., concurred.

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

Curia, per

O’Neall, J.

The first ground is fatal to the plaintiff’s action. For until the judgment was produced, or its existence and loss proved, the plaintiff could take nothing from his purchase at sheriff’s sale. The evidence clearly shows that no judgment in fact ever existed, and hence it follows that the execution and sale under it, were alike unauthorized and wrongful. The case of McCall vs. Boatwright, (2 Hill, 438,) cannot be distinguished from this, and its authority supercedes the necessity of argument or investigation.

The motion for nonsuit is granted.

Johnson and Harper, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 S.C.L. 490, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/evans-v-hinds-scctapp-1835.