Givens v. Porteous

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Givens v. Porteous

12 S.C.L. 379

DecidedMay 15, 1821

StatusPublished

This text of 12 S.C.L. 379 (Givens v. Porteous) 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

Givens v. Porteous, 12 S.C.L. 379 (S.C. 1821).

Pincite

Opinion

"Where the plaintiff sued the defendant in debt, on judgment obtained against him as administrator, suggesting a devastavit, the' original judgment to which the defendant had not pleaded plane administravit, pnd the execution issued on that judgment and returned nulla bona, also, the defendant’s account as administrator, filed with the ordinary and sworn to, admitting a large balancein his hands due to the estate, exceeding the amount of the judgment, is quité sufficient evidence of. a devas-tavit.” See (2 Phillips Ev. 296, Tappan vs. Kain, 12 Johns. 120.) Indeed it has often been held, that “ a former judgment against executors, and a Ji. fa. returned nulla bona, are conclusive evidence of a devastavit.” See Platt vs. Robins & Swartwout, (1 Johns. Ca. 276, and a number of cases there referred to : as Salk. 310. 1 Lord Raym, 589.) Erving vs. Peters, (3 Term Rep. 685.) — R

Where the verdict.is for damages beyond the amount laid in the writ,- the plaintiff must enter a remittitur for the surplus, or a venire de novo will be awarded. See Mooney vs. Welsh, (1 Const. Rep. 133,) also Brown vs. Gibson, (1 Nott & M‘Cord, 326.)

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

"Where the plaintiff sued the defendant in debt, on judgment obtained against him as administrator, suggesting a devastavit, the' original judgment to which the defendant had not pleaded plane administravit, pnd the execution issued on that judgment and returned nulla bona, also, the defendant’s account as administrator, filed with the ordinary and sworn to, admitting a large balancein his hands due to the estate, exceeding the amount of the judgment, is quité sufficient evidence of. a devas-tavit.” See (2 Phillips Ev. 296, Tappan vs. Kain, 12 Johns. 120.) Indeed it has often been held, that “ a former judgment against executors, and a Ji. fa. returned nulla bona, are conclusive evidence of a devastavit.” See Platt vs. Robins & Swartwout, (1 Johns. Ca. 276, and a number of cases there referred to : as Salk. 310. 1 Lord Raym, 589.) Erving vs. Peters, (3 Term Rep. 685.) — R

Where the verdict.is for damages beyond the amount laid in the writ,- the plaintiff must enter a remittitur for the surplus, or a venire de novo will be awarded. See Mooney vs. Welsh, (1 Const. Rep. 133,) also Brown vs. Gibson, (1 Nott & M‘Cord, 326.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 S.C.L. 379, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/givens-v-porteous-sc-1821.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack