Lockart v. Kidd

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Lockart v. Kidd

9 S.C.L. 217

DecidedMay 15, 1818

StatusPublished

This text of 9 S.C.L. 217 (Lockart v. Kidd) 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

Lockart v. Kidd, 9 S.C.L. 217 (S.C. 1818).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Johnson.

The decision in this case was made on the authority of the English decisions, which support that position, but in the case of Powell and 'Pravilla, decided in this Court about fourteen years ago, the Court determined, that on a reference to several, an award made by the majority was a legal award, and that the concurrence of the whole was not necessary.: Three out of four in this case having concurred, the intervention of an umpire was unnecessary. I am therefore of opinion that the motion ought to be granted.

Grimké, Colcock, Cheves, and Gantt, J. concurred. JVbii, J. dissented.

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

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Johnson.

The decision in this case was made on the authority of the English decisions, which support that position, but in the case of Powell and 'Pravilla, decided in this Court about fourteen years ago, the Court determined, that on a reference to several, an award made by the majority was a legal award, and that the concurrence of the whole was not necessary.: Three out of four in this case having concurred, the intervention of an umpire was unnecessary. I am therefore of opinion that the motion ought to be granted.

Grimké, Colcock, Cheves, and Gantt, J. concurred. JVbii, J. dissented.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 S.C.L. 217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lockart-v-kidd-sc-1818.