Koon v. Ivey

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Koon v. Ivey

42 S.C.L. 37

DecidedDecember 15, 1854

StatusPublished

This text of 42 S.C.L. 37 (Koon v. Ivey) 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

Koon v. Ivey, 42 S.C.L. 37 (S.C. Ct. App. 1854).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

WaRDLAw, J.

The judgment conclusively established an indebtedness of the defendant, in October, 1844, growing out of the note upon which it was founded. The defence now offered to the sci.fa. is in effect, that such indebtedness did not exist, because prior to the judgment the note had ceased to be the property of the plaintiff in the judgment. This is bringing under review now matter before adjudged, and cannot be permitted. If events supervening the judgment have given interests to third persons, which require the administrator, present plaintiff, to use the recovery for the benefit of those persons, remedies are not wanting to prevent injury to equitable assignees.

This Court has no information upon which it could rely in looking beyond the parties before it.

The motion is dismissed.

O’Njgall, Whither, Glovee and Munro, JJ., concurred,’

Appeal dismissed.

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

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

WaRDLAw, J.

The judgment conclusively established an indebtedness of the defendant, in October, 1844, growing out of the note upon which it was founded. The defence now offered to the sci.fa. is in effect, that such indebtedness did not exist, because prior to the judgment the note had ceased to be the property of the plaintiff in the judgment. This is bringing under review now matter before adjudged, and cannot be permitted. If events supervening the judgment have given interests to third persons, which require the administrator, present plaintiff, to use the recovery for the benefit of those persons, remedies are not wanting to prevent injury to equitable assignees.

This Court has no information upon which it could rely in looking beyond the parties before it.

The motion is dismissed.

O’Njgall, Whither, Glovee and Munro, JJ., concurred,’

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 S.C.L. 37, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/koon-v-ivey-scctapp-1854.