Fonville v. Richey

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Fonville v. Richey

31 S.C.L. 10

DecidedDecember 15, 1845

StatusPublished

This text of 31 S.C.L. 10 (Fonville v. Richey) 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

Fonville v. Richey, 31 S.C.L. 10 (S.C. Ct. App. 1845).

Pincite

Opinion

Ciiria, per Evans, J.

When the 1st of August was passed, without security for costs being put in, the plaintiff was out of court, and judgment of non-suit might have been entered against him. But when he afterwards filed his declaration, and the defendants put in their plea, the plaintiff was again [11]*11restored to his status as a suitor. By pleading the defendants admitted the plaintiff was in court. It was treating the plaintiff as one having a right to file his declaration, to which the defendants were bound to plead. The plaintiff had no right to file his declaration — his action was at an end; but when the defendants pleaded to it, it was a waiver of the benefits which had resulted to them by the .non-suit.

If a defendant enters an appearance he cannot object that there is no legal service of the writ; he admits thereby he has been legally brought into court. So, also, if he pleads to the declaration he cannot question the plaintiff’s right to file it; it is an admission of his right to do so.

- The motion is dismissed.

ONeall,' Butler, Wardlaw and Frost, JJ. concurred.

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

Ciiria, per Evans, J.

When the 1st of August was passed, without security for costs being put in, the plaintiff was out of court, and judgment of non-suit might have been entered against him. But when he afterwards filed his declaration, and the defendants put in their plea, the plaintiff was again [11]*11restored to his status as a suitor. By pleading the defendants admitted the plaintiff was in court. It was treating the plaintiff as one having a right to file his declaration, to which the defendants were bound to plead. The plaintiff had no right to file his declaration — his action was at an end; but when the defendants pleaded to it, it was a waiver of the benefits which had resulted to them by the .non-suit.

If a defendant enters an appearance he cannot object that there is no legal service of the writ; he admits thereby he has been legally brought into court. So, also, if he pleads to the declaration he cannot question the plaintiff’s right to file it; it is an admission of his right to do so.

- The motion is dismissed.

ONeall,' Butler, Wardlaw and Frost, JJ. concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 S.C.L. 10, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fonville-v-richey-scctapp-1845.