Fountain v. Bryce

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Fountain v. Bryce

47 S.C.L. 234

DecidedMay 15, 1861

StatusPublished

This text of 47 S.C.L. 234 (Fountain v. Bryce) 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

Fountain v. Bryce, 47 S.C.L. 234 (S.C. Ct. App. 1861).

Pincite

Opinion

Curia, per

O’Neall, C. J.

In this case, we concur in Chancellor Dunldn’s decree.

"We think that he overlooked the necessity of making a decree between the defendants. The defendant, Cobb, on [241]*241surrendering the slaves to the complainant, is entitled to his note held by his co-defendants. It is therefore ordered and decreed, that on his delivering the slaves mentioned in the decree to the complainant, the defendants, Alexander Bryce and J. Gambrell Price, do deliver to him his note for the price.

Johnstone, J., and Wardlaw, J., concurred.

Decree modified.

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

Curia, per

O’Neall, C. J.

In this case, we concur in Chancellor Dunldn’s decree.

"We think that he overlooked the necessity of making a decree between the defendants. The defendant, Cobb, on [241]*241surrendering the slaves to the complainant, is entitled to his note held by his co-defendants. It is therefore ordered and decreed, that on his delivering the slaves mentioned in the decree to the complainant, the defendants, Alexander Bryce and J. Gambrell Price, do deliver to him his note for the price.

Johnstone, J., and Wardlaw, J., concurred.

Decree modified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 S.C.L. 234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fountain-v-bryce-scctapp-1861.