Parrot v. Green

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Parrot v. Green

12 S.C.L. 531

DecidedMay 15, 1822

StatusPublished

This text of 12 S.C.L. 531 (Parrot v. Green) 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

Parrot v. Green, 12 S.C.L. 531 (S.C. 1822).

Pincite

Opinions

Mr- Justice Huger

delivered the opinion of the court.

In the case oi the Planters and Mechanics Bank vs. Moses Cohen, (2 Nott & McCord, 440,) it was decided that the court would not grant an order l’or consolidation, unless satisfied that no injury was to result to the plaintiff. In the case bel ore' the court, a consolidation must necessarily produce delay, as the amount of the two notes is beyond the summary jurisdiction of the court, and delay is always such an injury to the party complaining, as should prevent the court from ordering a consolidation.

The motion must therefore be granted.

Justices Nott and Gantt, concutred.

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

Mr- Justice Huger

delivered the opinion of the court.

In the case oi the Planters and Mechanics Bank vs. Moses Cohen, (2 Nott & McCord, 440,) it was decided that the court would not grant an order l’or consolidation, unless satisfied that no injury was to result to the plaintiff. In the case bel ore' the court, a consolidation must necessarily produce delay, as the amount of the two notes is beyond the summary jurisdiction of the court, and delay is always such an injury to the party complaining, as should prevent the court from ordering a consolidation.

The motion must therefore be granted.

Justices Nott and Gantt, concutred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 S.C.L. 531, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parrot-v-green-sc-1822.