Lockhart v. Eaves

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Lockhart v. Eaves

23 S.C.L. 321

DecidedMay 15, 1838

StatusPublished

This text of 23 S.C.L. 321 (Lockhart v. Eaves) 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

Lockhart v. Eaves, 23 S.C.L. 321 (S.C. Ct. App. 1838).

Pincite

Opinion

Butler, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

From the whole complexion of this case, it is not one that deserves the countenance and favor of the Court. It is founded on a stale demand; the original parties to the alleged contract not having had any direct dealings with each other since 1812 — a period of more than twenty-five years. The adjustment made by Wood, was, it seems at least fifteen years pay. It is evident that be bad paid some money to plaintiff' since the settlement made by Wood; and it may have been, that be was willing to pay some amount smaller and different from that which appears on the demand sued for. The acknowledgment imposing the obligation, should also have shown the demand upon which it was founded; so that the Court could have pronounced on its effect and validity. [323]*323pay. It is evident that be bad paid some money to plaintiff' since the settlement made by Wood; and it may have been, that be was willing to pay some amount smaller and different from that which appears on the demand sued for. The acknowledgment imposing the obligation, should also have shown the demand upon which it was founded; so that the Court could have pronounced on its effect and validity.

The motion for a new trial is granted.

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

Butler, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

From the whole complexion of this case, it is not one that deserves the countenance and favor of the Court. It is founded on a stale demand; the original parties to the alleged contract not having had any direct dealings with each other since 1812 — a period of more than twenty-five years. The adjustment made by Wood, was, it seems at least fifteen years pay. It is evident that be bad paid some money to plaintiff' since the settlement made by Wood; and it may have been, that be was willing to pay some amount smaller and different from that which appears on the demand sued for. The acknowledgment imposing the obligation, should also have shown the demand upon which it was founded; so that the Court could have pronounced on its effect and validity. [323]*323pay. It is evident that be bad paid some money to plaintiff' since the settlement made by Wood; and it may have been, that be was willing to pay some amount smaller and different from that which appears on the demand sued for. The acknowledgment imposing the obligation, should also have shown the demand upon which it was founded; so that the Court could have pronounced on its effect and validity.

The motion for a new trial is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 S.C.L. 321, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lockhart-v-eaves-scctapp-1838.