Irby v. Vining

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Irby v. Vining

13 S.C.L. 379

DecidedMay 15, 1823

StatusPublished

This text of 13 S.C.L. 379 (Irby v. Vining) 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

Irby v. Vining, 13 S.C.L. 379 (S.C. 1823).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Colcock

delivered the opinion of the court:

In the case of Jacob Martin vs. Wm. Walton & Co. (1 McCords Rep. 16,) and the case of the Bank of So. Carolina vs. Humphreys & Mathews, (Ibid, 388,) the court have determined that that which is tantamount to a personal notice, shall be sufficient. If such circumstances are proved as leave no rational doubt on the mind that one knew of the dissolution of the copartnership ; this is certainly as satisfactory as direct and positive proof. It is in fact, all that is meant by the rule ; for where a copartnership had existed for a long time, and an extensive business carried on, it would be difficult if not impossible to send to each customer direct and personal notice. The evidence, therefore, should have been received, and if it had not been satisfactory, the decree would have remained.

The motion is granted.

Justices Johnson, Huger, Richardson and Nott, concurred.

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

Mr. Justice Colcock

delivered the opinion of the court:

In the case of Jacob Martin vs. Wm. Walton & Co. (1 McCords Rep. 16,) and the case of the Bank of So. Carolina vs. Humphreys & Mathews, (Ibid, 388,) the court have determined that that which is tantamount to a personal notice, shall be sufficient. If such circumstances are proved as leave no rational doubt on the mind that one knew of the dissolution of the copartnership ; this is certainly as satisfactory as direct and positive proof. It is in fact, all that is meant by the rule ; for where a copartnership had existed for a long time, and an extensive business carried on, it would be difficult if not impossible to send to each customer direct and personal notice. The evidence, therefore, should have been received, and if it had not been satisfactory, the decree would have remained.

The motion is granted.

Justices Johnson, Huger, Richardson and Nott, concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 S.C.L. 379, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/irby-v-vining-sc-1823.