Executors of Fisher v. Representatives of Tucker

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Executors of Fisher v. Representatives of Tucker

6 S.C. Eq. 169

DecidedJuly 1, 1826

StatusPublished

This text of 6 S.C. Eq. 169 (Executors of Fisher v. Representatives of Tucker) 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

Executors of Fisher v. Representatives of Tucker, 6 S.C. Eq. 169 (S.C. Ct. App. 1826).

Pincite

Opinion

Curia, per

Nott, J.

I concur in the general course of respecting which different opinions have been entertained. In the cases of Hackley v. Patrick, 3 Johns. Rep. 536, Smith v. Ludlow, 6 Johns. Rep. 267, and Chardon v. Calder, &c. 2 Const. Rep. Tread. Edit. 685, the Court seem-reasoning which the Chancellor has adopted in this case, and the conclusion at which he has arrived. How far t]10 acknowledgments of one partner of the existence and amount of a debt may be evidence to bind another, after a dissolution of the copartnership, is a question ed to have thought that the confession of one could not bind the other. But in the cases of Wood v. Braddick, 1 Taunt. 104, Simpson & Morrison v. Geddes, 2 Bay, 533, and Reimsdyk v. Kane and others, 1 Gallison, 630, contrary opinions are expressed. Such evidence is unquestionably sufficient to save a case from the operation of J ..... . . the statute of limitations; and I think it admissible as to the existence of the debt, but I cannot think it conclusive. The Court must be allowed to give it such credit . . . . . . , only as under the circumstances it appears entitled to. ^ not think that it was sufficient in the present case to entitled the complainants to a decree. The defendants’ ancestor had been dead about twenty years when this bill was filed. How long the demand had existed before his- death does not appear. The acknowledg-mcnt relied on was made several years after his death by a partner, who afterwards became insolvent, and had 1 ' been dead several years before the filing of the bill. These defendants knew nothing of the transaction; they a therefore to call upon the plaintiffs to adduce some other evidence of the existence of the debt. And without such evidence the complainants had no right to expect a decree. The motion therefore must be refused.

Decree affirmed.

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

Curia, per

Nott, J.

I concur in the general course of respecting which different opinions have been entertained. In the cases of Hackley v. Patrick, 3 Johns. Rep. 536, Smith v. Ludlow, 6 Johns. Rep. 267, and Chardon v. Calder, &c. 2 Const. Rep. Tread. Edit. 685, the Court seem-reasoning which the Chancellor has adopted in this case, and the conclusion at which he has arrived. How far t]10 acknowledgments of one partner of the existence and amount of a debt may be evidence to bind another, after a dissolution of the copartnership, is a question ed to have thought that the confession of one could not bind the other. But in the cases of Wood v. Braddick, 1 Taunt. 104, Simpson & Morrison v. Geddes, 2 Bay, 533, and Reimsdyk v. Kane and others, 1 Gallison, 630, contrary opinions are expressed. Such evidence is unquestionably sufficient to save a case from the operation of J ..... . . the statute of limitations; and I think it admissible as to the existence of the debt, but I cannot think it conclusive. The Court must be allowed to give it such credit . . . . . . , only as under the circumstances it appears entitled to. ^ not think that it was sufficient in the present case to entitled the complainants to a decree. The defendants’ ancestor had been dead about twenty years when this bill was filed. How long the demand had existed before his- death does not appear. The acknowledg-mcnt relied on was made several years after his death by a partner, who afterwards became insolvent, and had 1 ' been dead several years before the filing of the bill. These defendants knew nothing of the transaction; they a therefore to call upon the plaintiffs to adduce some other evidence of the existence of the debt. And without such evidence the complainants had no right to expect a decree. The motion therefore must be refused.

Decree affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 S.C. Eq. 169, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/executors-of-fisher-v-representatives-of-tucker-scctapp-1826.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack