Jones v. Muse

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Jones v. Muse

3 S.C.L. 67

DecidedApril 15, 1802

StatusPublished

This text of 3 S.C.L. 67 (Jones v. Muse) 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

Jones v. Muse, 3 S.C.L. 67 (S.C. 1802).

Pincite

Opinions

The judges delivered their opinions as follows.:

Trezevant, J.

I am of opinion, that the plea in abatement should be overruled, because the verdict in the case of Fort v. Jones, did not vest the property.in Fort; but. Jones, upon paying the damages, which it was in his option to do, had a right to keep th,e slave. And, besides, while the motion for a new tria.l was pending [69]*69in this court, the event of the suit of Fort v. Jones, was still uncertain, inasmuch as a new trial might have been granted; and if granted, of course Fort would have taken nothing under his verdict in that case.

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

The judges delivered their opinions as follows.:

Trezevant, J.

I am of opinion, that the plea in abatement should be overruled, because the verdict in the case of Fort v. Jones, did not vest the property.in Fort; but. Jones, upon paying the damages, which it was in his option to do, had a right to keep th,e slave. And, besides, while the motion for a new tria.l was pending [69]*69in this court, the event of the suit of Fort v. Jones, was still uncertain, inasmuch as a new trial might have been granted; and if granted, of course Fort would have taken nothing under his verdict in that case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 S.C.L. 67, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-muse-sc-1802.