Peake v. Scaife

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Peake v. Scaife

45 S.C.L. 672

DecidedDecember 15, 1858

StatusPublished

This text of 45 S.C.L. 672 (Peake v. Scaife) 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

Peake v. Scaife, 45 S.C.L. 672 (S.C. Ct. App. 1858).

Pincite

Opinion

Tbe opinion of tbe Court was delivered by

O’Neall, J.

It is true in Wells vs. Kennerly, 4 McCord, 123, it is said that medical attendance on a slave hired, may be the subject of contract between the owner and the person hiring: and such a course is recommended as the bill can be deducted from the wages. Beyond all doubt that case in its leading principle, that 'the master is not by law liable for the [675]*675physician’s bill, who attends bis slave while in the possession of the person hiring, and at his request, or in the ’exception before pointed out, does not sustain the plaintiff’s case.

Jeter, who hired the slave, and who by his overseer called in the plaintiff, is liable for his bill. It maytbe that he (Jeter,) can recover the amount of it after paying it, from the defendant. Between them there is privity of contract: but between the plaintiff, and the defendant, there is none.

The motion is dismissed.

Wardlaw, Withers, Whitíter, G-loyer and Munro, JJ., concurred.

Motion dismissed.

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

Tbe opinion of tbe Court was delivered by

O’Neall, J.

It is true in Wells vs. Kennerly, 4 McCord, 123, it is said that medical attendance on a slave hired, may be the subject of contract between the owner and the person hiring: and such a course is recommended as the bill can be deducted from the wages. Beyond all doubt that case in its leading principle, that 'the master is not by law liable for the [675]*675physician’s bill, who attends bis slave while in the possession of the person hiring, and at his request, or in the ’exception before pointed out, does not sustain the plaintiff’s case.

Jeter, who hired the slave, and who by his overseer called in the plaintiff, is liable for his bill. It maytbe that he (Jeter,) can recover the amount of it after paying it, from the defendant. Between them there is privity of contract: but between the plaintiff, and the defendant, there is none.

The motion is dismissed.

Wardlaw, Withers, Whitíter, G-loyer and Munro, JJ., concurred.

Motion dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 S.C.L. 672, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peake-v-scaife-scctapp-1858.