M'Neil v. Philip

Supreme Court of South Carolina

M'Neil v. Philip

12 S.C.L. 392

DecidedMay 15, 1821

StatusPublished

This text of 12 S.C.L. 392 (M'Neil v. Philip) 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

M'Neil v. Philip, 12 S.C.L. 392 (S.C. 1821).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Richardson

delivered the opinion of the court. ■

It-is not necessary to inquire into the strict legal title of the plaintiff to the negro slave, under the authority of the case of Norwood vs. Mannings decided in the Constitu-[395]*395uoual Court at Columbia in 1817. It is enough to say that the defendant ’ had stipulated to return Ellick to the plaintiff upon a certain event which bad occurred; and good faith required this contract should be fulfilled on the part of the defendant.

Prioleau, for the motion. Gadsden, contra.

A new trial was therefore granted.

Justices Colcoci, Nott, Huger, and Gantt, concurred,

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

Mr. Justice Richardson

delivered the opinion of the court. ■

It-is not necessary to inquire into the strict legal title of the plaintiff to the negro slave, under the authority of the case of Norwood vs. Mannings decided in the Constitu-[395]*395uoual Court at Columbia in 1817. It is enough to say that the defendant ’ had stipulated to return Ellick to the plaintiff upon a certain event which bad occurred; and good faith required this contract should be fulfilled on the part of the defendant.

Prioleau, for the motion. Gadsden, contra.

A new trial was therefore granted.

Justices Colcoci, Nott, Huger, and Gantt, concurred,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 S.C.L. 392, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mneil-v-philip-sc-1821.