Patten v. Whitehead

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Patten v. Whitehead

47 S.C.L. 156

DecidedApril 15, 1861

StatusPublished

This text of 47 S.C.L. 156 (Patten v. Whitehead) 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.

Bluebook

Patten v. Whitehead, 47 S.C.L. 156 (S.C. Ct. App. 1861).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

O’Neall, C. J.

The plaintiffs, according to an uniform practice in the Law Court, ought to have been required to prove who were the persons composing the partnership. It was one of the allegations required to be proved without being objected to in the pleading. In these cases, however, as a matter of surprise, and the practice not being generally well understood, and verdicts being found for the plaintiffs, it is thought best to permit the parties to supply the proof.

The motions for new trials are therefore granted.

Wardlaw, J., concurred.

New trials granted.

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

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

O’Neall, C. J.

The plaintiffs, according to an uniform practice in the Law Court, ought to have been required to prove who were the persons composing the partnership. It was one of the allegations required to be proved without being objected to in the pleading. In these cases, however, as a matter of surprise, and the practice not being generally well understood, and verdicts being found for the plaintiffs, it is thought best to permit the parties to supply the proof.

The motions for new trials are therefore granted.

Wardlaw, J., concurred.

New trials granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 S.C.L. 156, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patten-v-whitehead-scctapp-1861.