Harris v. Caston

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Harris v. Caston

18 S.C.L. 342

DecidedMay 15, 1831

StatusPublished

This text of 18 S.C.L. 342 (Harris v. Caston) 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

Harris v. Caston, 18 S.C.L. 342 (S.C. Ct. App. 1831).

Pincite

Opinion

The presiding Judge, held, that the alleged agreement went to prove the defendant a mere agent for making a sale, instead of an absolute purchaser; or at least that its effect was to render the note conditional, when on its face it was absolute. If it formed part of the original contract of sale, it was inadmissible as contradicting the note; if made subsequently, it was nudum pactum, and void. Decree for plaintiff for the whole amount of the note.

Clinton, for the motion. Rogers, contra.

The defendant moved to set aside the decree, and for a new trial; but the judgment of the Circuit Court was unanimously affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

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

The presiding Judge, held, that the alleged agreement went to prove the defendant a mere agent for making a sale, instead of an absolute purchaser; or at least that its effect was to render the note conditional, when on its face it was absolute. If it formed part of the original contract of sale, it was inadmissible as contradicting the note; if made subsequently, it was nudum pactum, and void. Decree for plaintiff for the whole amount of the note.

Clinton, for the motion. Rogers, contra.

The defendant moved to set aside the decree, and for a new trial; but the judgment of the Circuit Court was unanimously affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 S.C.L. 342, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-caston-scctapp-1831.