Howell v. Bulkley

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Howell v. Bulkley

10 S.C.L. 249

DecidedMay 15, 1818

StatusPublished

This text of 10 S.C.L. 249 (Howell v. Bulkley) 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

Howell v. Bulkley, 10 S.C.L. 249 (S.C. 1818).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

CoiiGOCK, J.

It is not for the defendant in this action to dispute the want of consideration. Between assignee and assignor such a question might be made; but, as to the defendant, it is immaterial whether a full consideration was paid, or whether the bond had been given by the assignor to the assignee. The Act of 1198,¹ (1 Brev. Dig., 96, 2 Faust, 215,) authorizes the assignee of a bond to bring an action in his own name, style himself assignee, which is the. mode' in which the plaintiff in this action has proceeded. The action, therefore, is well brought.

As to the second ground, I do not conceive it to be necessary that the assignment should be under seal. - By the common law, an assignment may be by parol; Croke Eliza., 436; 3 Rep. 63;² (a bond is a proper subject of donatio causa mortis, Wells v. Tucker, 3 Binney, 366;) and this has been the invariable mode of transferring bonds in this State.

The motion, therefore, is discharged.

Grimke, Nott, Cheves and Gantt, JJ., concurred.

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

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

CoiiGOCK, J.

It is not for the defendant in this action to dispute the want of consideration. Between assignee and assignor such a question might be made; but, as to the defendant, it is immaterial whether a full consideration was paid, or whether the bond had been given by the assignor to the assignee. The Act of 1198,¹ (1 Brev. Dig., 96, 2 Faust, 215,) authorizes the assignee of a bond to bring an action in his own name, style himself assignee, which is the. mode' in which the plaintiff in this action has proceeded. The action, therefore, is well brought.

As to the second ground, I do not conceive it to be necessary that the assignment should be under seal. - By the common law, an assignment may be by parol; Croke Eliza., 436; 3 Rep. 63;² (a bond is a proper subject of donatio causa mortis, Wells v. Tucker, 3 Binney, 366;) and this has been the invariable mode of transferring bonds in this State.

The motion, therefore, is discharged.

Grimke, Nott, Cheves and Gantt, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 S.C.L. 249, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howell-v-bulkley-sc-1818.