Hopkins v. Administrators of M'Pherson

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Hopkins v. Administrators of M'Pherson

2 S.C.L. 194

DecidedJuly 1, 1798

StatusPublished

This text of 2 S.C.L. 194 (Hopkins v. Administrators of M'Pherson) 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

Hopkins v. Administrators of M'Pherson, 2 S.C.L. 194 (S.C. Ct. App. 1798).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion for a new trial, on the ground of misdirection, The circumstances of this case, as reported, were these t writ was flrst taken out against one of the administrators alone, when several had been appointed and qualified ; the 7 ... . plaintiff upon discovering his mistake, discontinued his ac-1 r . . . tion and commenced another one against all the admxnis-trators ; the first writ was in time to bar the statute of limitations, but the second was lodged after the statute had run oui against the debt; so that the only question was, whe-the lodging of the first writ had taken the case out of ° ° the statute or not? The court was unanimous, that the first . , being void, it gave no right whatever to the plaintiff ; and [195]*195when the second writ (which w~s valid) issued9 the statute of limitations had run out and barred the recovery.

Rule for new trial dischargecL

Present~ BuRKE~ Gi~mui~ ~

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

Motion for a new trial, on the ground of misdirection, The circumstances of this case, as reported, were these t writ was flrst taken out against one of the administrators alone, when several had been appointed and qualified ; the 7 ... . plaintiff upon discovering his mistake, discontinued his ac-1 r . . . tion and commenced another one against all the admxnis-trators ; the first writ was in time to bar the statute of limitations, but the second was lodged after the statute had run oui against the debt; so that the only question was, whe-the lodging of the first writ had taken the case out of ° ° the statute or not? The court was unanimous, that the first . , being void, it gave no right whatever to the plaintiff ; and [195]*195when the second writ (which w~s valid) issued9 the statute of limitations had run out and barred the recovery.

Rule for new trial dischargecL

Present~ BuRKE~ Gi~mui~ ~

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 S.C.L. 194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hopkins-v-administrators-of-mpherson-scctapp-1798.