Grist v. Newman

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Grist v. Newman

18 S.C.L. 92

DecidedJanuary 15, 1831

StatusPublished

This text of 18 S.C.L. 92 (Grist v. Newman) 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

Grist v. Newman, 18 S.C.L. 92 (S.C. Ct. App. 1831).

Pincite

Opinion

Johnson J.

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The case alluded to by the presiding Judge, was decided at the last sittings in Charleston, but 1 have not preserved the title of it.

* The rule laid down, was, that if the statute had fully run out, and the debt was actually barred, a promise to pay was necessary to revive it. It strikes me, however, that this case is clearly brought, within it: For I cannot conceive a more explicit promise to pay, than was here made. As to its being a conditional promise, I doubt whether, under any circumstances, a debtor in promising to pay a debt barred by the statute, can prescribe any conditions to the payment, other than such as entered into the original contract: Here, however, the expression that he would pay when he collected money due him, and out of which a condition is supposed to arise, to pay when he shall collect the money, appears evidently to be a reason for not paying the money then, and not a condition. The judgment of the Circuit Court reversing the judgment of the magistrate is, therefore reversed; and the appeal from that judgment is dismissed.

Vide Young v. Monpoey, and Cohen & Nesbit v. Aubin. post

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

Johnson J.

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The case alluded to by the presiding Judge, was decided at the last sittings in Charleston, but 1 have not preserved the title of it.

* The rule laid down, was, that if the statute had fully run out, and the debt was actually barred, a promise to pay was necessary to revive it. It strikes me, however, that this case is clearly brought, within it: For I cannot conceive a more explicit promise to pay, than was here made. As to its being a conditional promise, I doubt whether, under any circumstances, a debtor in promising to pay a debt barred by the statute, can prescribe any conditions to the payment, other than such as entered into the original contract: Here, however, the expression that he would pay when he collected money due him, and out of which a condition is supposed to arise, to pay when he shall collect the money, appears evidently to be a reason for not paying the money then, and not a condition. The judgment of the Circuit Court reversing the judgment of the magistrate is, therefore reversed; and the appeal from that judgment is dismissed.

Vide Young v. Monpoey, and Cohen & Nesbit v. Aubin. post

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 S.C.L. 92, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grist-v-newman-scctapp-1831.