Hincle v. Carruth

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Hincle v. Carruth

6 S.C.L. 471

DecidedNovember 15, 1814

StatusPublished

This text of 6 S.C.L. 471 (Hincle v. Carruth) 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

Hincle v. Carruth, 6 S.C.L. 471 (S.C. 1814).

Pincite

Opinion

Nott, J.

I am aware, that the proceedings the inferior courts of North-Carolina, and some of the other states, are very irregular. I believe that judgments are never formally entered up. I am disposed, therefore, to extend all possible indulgence and liberality towards them : and I believe our courts have given effect to them, wherever have found a single word, or act of the court, from [472]*472w^ence a judgment eould be inferred. But the ver-diet alone, cannot be received as evidence of a judgment.

The motion, therefore, must be discharged.

Justices Smith, Colcock, Bay, and Grimke, concurred.

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

Nott, J.

I am aware, that the proceedings the inferior courts of North-Carolina, and some of the other states, are very irregular. I believe that judgments are never formally entered up. I am disposed, therefore, to extend all possible indulgence and liberality towards them : and I believe our courts have given effect to them, wherever have found a single word, or act of the court, from [472]*472w^ence a judgment eould be inferred. But the ver-diet alone, cannot be received as evidence of a judgment.

The motion, therefore, must be discharged.

Justices Smith, Colcock, Bay, and Grimke, concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 S.C.L. 471, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hincle-v-carruth-sc-1814.