Kennedy v. Richey

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Kennedy v. Richey

32 S.C.L. 4

DecidedDecember 15, 1846

StatusPublished

This text of 32 S.C.L. 4 (Kennedy v. Richey) 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

Kennedy v. Richey, 32 S.C.L. 4 (S.C. Ct. App. 1846).

Pincite

Opinion

Evans J.

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The note in this case w?as given for a debt due by Richey to the firm of A. Kennedy & Co., during the lifetime of the other copartners, Foster and Patton. But as they were dead, the words, & Co., have no signification, and might be rejected as surplusage, as was done in the case of M’Cool v. M’Cluney, Harp. 486, and then the note would be payable to A. Kennedy alone, in whose name the action is brought. What follows the plaintiff’s name, that he was the survivor of James Foster and Jane Patton, and that he with them carried on a mercantile business, was a mere explanation of the manner in which the debt had accrued. His right of action did not depend upon it, and it was unnecessary to state it. But if one make an unne[5]*5cessary allegation in stating his case, the only effect which can result from it, is, that he may be bound to prove the allegation, and this was done.

The motion is dismissed.

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

Evans J.

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The note in this case w?as given for a debt due by Richey to the firm of A. Kennedy & Co., during the lifetime of the other copartners, Foster and Patton. But as they were dead, the words, & Co., have no signification, and might be rejected as surplusage, as was done in the case of M’Cool v. M’Cluney, Harp. 486, and then the note would be payable to A. Kennedy alone, in whose name the action is brought. What follows the plaintiff’s name, that he was the survivor of James Foster and Jane Patton, and that he with them carried on a mercantile business, was a mere explanation of the manner in which the debt had accrued. His right of action did not depend upon it, and it was unnecessary to state it. But if one make an unne[5]*5cessary allegation in stating his case, the only effect which can result from it, is, that he may be bound to prove the allegation, and this was done.

The motion is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 S.C.L. 4, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kennedy-v-richey-scctapp-1846.