Hughes v. Phelps

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Hughes v. Phelps

3 S.C.L. 81

DecidedApril 15, 1802

StatusPublished

This text of 3 S.C.L. 81 (Hughes v. Phelps) 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

Hughes v. Phelps, 3 S.C.L. 81 (S.C. 1802).

Pincite

Opinions

ít was the opinion of the majority of the court in this case, .that a summary process ought to' be sealed as a writ; and that it is a judicial process. Contrary to the opinion of Grimke, J., who' thought a rule, or order of court, would be sufficient to oblige the defendant to appear and answer;

In the same court, and at the same time, sundry cases on summary process, were depending on this question: whether the defendant is not allowed ah imparlance, Or privilege of a continuance of the cause over to the next court, after that to which the process is returnable, as a matter of course, in like manner as in other ac. tions, by capias ad respondendum, &6. Contradictory decisions had taken place in the district courts on this point; but four of the judges, viz. Grimke, Johnson, Ramsay, and Tkezevant, had established a rule in April last, by which the defendant id compelled to make his defence' at the court to which the process is returnable. See A. A. 1769. P. L. 270.-

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

ít was the opinion of the majority of the court in this case, .that a summary process ought to' be sealed as a writ; and that it is a judicial process. Contrary to the opinion of Grimke, J., who' thought a rule, or order of court, would be sufficient to oblige the defendant to appear and answer;

In the same court, and at the same time, sundry cases on summary process, were depending on this question: whether the defendant is not allowed ah imparlance, Or privilege of a continuance of the cause over to the next court, after that to which the process is returnable, as a matter of course, in like manner as in other ac. tions, by capias ad respondendum, &6. Contradictory decisions had taken place in the district courts on this point; but four of the judges, viz. Grimke, Johnson, Ramsay, and Tkezevant, had established a rule in April last, by which the defendant id compelled to make his defence' at the court to which the process is returnable. See A. A. 1769. P. L. 270.-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 S.C.L. 81, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hughes-v-phelps-sc-1802.