O'Driscoll v. Fishburne

Supreme Court of South Carolina

O'Driscoll v. Fishburne

10 S.C.L. 77

DecidedJanuary 15, 1818

StatusPublished

This text of 10 S.C.L. 77 (O'Driscoll v. Fishburne) 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

O'Driscoll v. Fishburne, 10 S.C.L. 77 (S.C. 1818).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Gantt, J.

There can be no question, but that the executor of an executor represents the first testator, and. may declare as such, without naming or noticing the first executor ; and e converso, where an action is brought against the executor of an executor, for a debt due by ^he [47]*47testator, be may be declared against, as the executor* of the deceased testator, without noticing the first executor. (Toller, 1st Edition, 26, 44; Chitty, 13.) But'although this may be done, it does not follow, that it is an error to notice the prior executorship. On the contrary, it is the more usual and correct mode of proceeding.

The nonsuit was therefore improperly ordered and must be set aside.

It is unnecessary to give any opinion on the second ground taken in this case, as we are all of opinion, that the nonsuit ought not to have been allowed, on the objection taken by defendant’s counsel.

Colcock, Cheves and Johnson, JJ., concurred.

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

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Gantt, J.

There can be no question, but that the executor of an executor represents the first testator, and. may declare as such, without naming or noticing the first executor ; and e converso, where an action is brought against the executor of an executor, for a debt due by ^he [47]*47testator, be may be declared against, as the executor* of the deceased testator, without noticing the first executor. (Toller, 1st Edition, 26, 44; Chitty, 13.) But'although this may be done, it does not follow, that it is an error to notice the prior executorship. On the contrary, it is the more usual and correct mode of proceeding.

The nonsuit was therefore improperly ordered and must be set aside.

It is unnecessary to give any opinion on the second ground taken in this case, as we are all of opinion, that the nonsuit ought not to have been allowed, on the objection taken by defendant’s counsel.

Colcock, Cheves and Johnson, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 S.C.L. 77, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/odriscoll-v-fishburne-sc-1818.