Oswald v. King

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Oswald v. King

4 S.C.L. 471

DecidedApril 15, 1811

StatusPublished

This text of 4 S.C.L. 471 (Oswald v. King) 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

Oswald v. King, 4 S.C.L. 471 (S.C. 1811).

Pincite

Opinion

3d May, 1811.

Gkimke, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court. That it was not necessary to give notice to the defendant to produce the deed. That if he could derive any advantage from it, he might have produced it himself. It was his own folly, or neglect, if he suffered by its non.production. The case of Cowans v. Abra-hams, 1 Esp. Rep., was for a bill of exchange. But even in that case, the decision does not appear reasonable. In a later case, Bucher v. Jarratt, 3 Bos. and P. 148, for a certificate of a ship’s register, notice to produce the instrument was not deemed necessary. It has not appeared that the damages are excessive.

Motion rejected.

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

3d May, 1811.

Gkimke, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court. That it was not necessary to give notice to the defendant to produce the deed. That if he could derive any advantage from it, he might have produced it himself. It was his own folly, or neglect, if he suffered by its non.production. The case of Cowans v. Abra-hams, 1 Esp. Rep., was for a bill of exchange. But even in that case, the decision does not appear reasonable. In a later case, Bucher v. Jarratt, 3 Bos. and P. 148, for a certificate of a ship’s register, notice to produce the instrument was not deemed necessary. It has not appeared that the damages are excessive.

Motion rejected.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 S.C.L. 471, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oswald-v-king-sc-1811.