Menude v. Butler
This text of 39 S.C.L. 440 (Menude v. Butler) 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.
Opinion
The attempt, in this case, to shew a sufficient render, in discharge of the bail, utterly failed. All of our cases, from Bomar vs. Poole, (2 Speers, 120,) to Douglass vs. Owens,
There was no designation of the case in which there was a render ; there is no certain proof that the render, such as it was, was made to Wilder before or after he went out of office.
To discharge the bail under such proof, would leave the plaintiff remediless. For the great probability is, that Wilder could not be made liable for an escape.
The motion for a new trial is granted,
Motion granted.
Ante p. 149.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
39 S.C.L. 440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/menude-v-butler-scctapp-1852.