Lingards v. Brisbane

6 Rec. Co. Ch. (S.C.) 586
CourtCourt of Chancery of South Carolina
DecidedAugust 20, 1771
StatusPublished

This text of 6 Rec. Co. Ch. (S.C.) 586 (Lingards v. Brisbane) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Chancery of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lingards v. Brisbane, 6 Rec. Co. Ch. (S.C.) 586 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1771).

Opinion

On Motion of Mr. John Rutledge Solicitor for the Complainants and on reading the affidavit of Joseph Gaultier of the Service of the Subpenas to answer; and also on reading the Certificate of the Register that Rachel Quash, Jane Lee, Joseph Bee, Mary Ann Dewes, Francis Rivers and Elizabeth his Wife and William Bee some of the Defendants in the above Cause have not, nor hath either of them as yet entered their Appearances in his Office to the Bill filed in this Cause: It is therefore Ordered that attachments do forthwith issue against the said Rachel Quash Joseph Bee Mary Ann Dewes Francis Rivers and Elizabeth his Wife and William Bee for not appearing and answering Complainants said Bill.

Will: Burrows Mag. in Can.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
6 Rec. Co. Ch. (S.C.) 586, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lingards-v-brisbane-ctchansc-1771.