Lucas v. Sanders

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Lucas v. Sanders

26 S.C.L. 311

DecidedMay 15, 1841

StatusPublished

This text of 26 S.C.L. 311 (Lucas v. Sanders) 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

Lucas v. Sanders, 26 S.C.L. 311 (S.C. Ct. App. 1841).

Pincite

Opinion

Curia, per

Butler, J.

The evidence in this case was entirely satisfactory, that Sanders had never given Egger express authority to subject him to liability by an obligation under seal, and without such authority, either expressly given, or inferable from their course of dealing, Sanders could not be made liable on such a paper. Whether the paper in question* could be regarded as the joint obligation of Egger & McAlilly, upon which one might be liable, the other being out of the State, is a question upon which I give no opinion. The case, as it now stands, is a joint action against Sanders & McAlilly. It is alleged that they made the note, when in fact, and in law, they did not. The position taken is, that in a joint action on a paper purporting to have been made jointly, a recovery may be had against one, as upon a several obligation. This is opposed to general authority, and express adjudications of the State. See Ives vs. Picket, (2 McC. 271;) Lockhart vs. Bell, (2 Hill, 422.)

Motion to reverse Circuit decision dismissed.

The whole Court concurred.

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

Curia, per

Butler, J.

The evidence in this case was entirely satisfactory, that Sanders had never given Egger express authority to subject him to liability by an obligation under seal, and without such authority, either expressly given, or inferable from their course of dealing, Sanders could not be made liable on such a paper. Whether the paper in question* could be regarded as the joint obligation of Egger & McAlilly, upon which one might be liable, the other being out of the State, is a question upon which I give no opinion. The case, as it now stands, is a joint action against Sanders & McAlilly. It is alleged that they made the note, when in fact, and in law, they did not. The position taken is, that in a joint action on a paper purporting to have been made jointly, a recovery may be had against one, as upon a several obligation. This is opposed to general authority, and express adjudications of the State. See Ives vs. Picket, (2 McC. 271;) Lockhart vs. Bell, (2 Hill, 422.)

Motion to reverse Circuit decision dismissed.

The whole Court concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 S.C.L. 311, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lucas-v-sanders-scctapp-1841.