Pritchard v. Muir

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Pritchard v. Muir

4 S.C.L. 371

DecidedJanuary 15, 1810

StatusPublished

This text of 4 S.C.L. 371 (Pritchard v. Muir) 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

Pritchard v. Muir, 4 S.C.L. 371 (S.C. 1810).

Pincite

Opinion

[374]*374January 13th, 1810.

Bat, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court, Gkimke, J., absent. This isa case not within the statute of frauds. The- jury were instructed to enquire whether the plaintiff did not contract with the-defendants, and look to them for compensation. A consignee may make himself liable. The pvidenee was strong to prove that the plaintiff considered the contract to be a personal one with the defendants, and relied on them for payment. He might have afterwards taken up the idea that he had a lien on the ship, or he might have thought so from the first; but if he was right or wrong in this idea, it would not impair the dependence he had, or the contract wifh the defendants. A party may have a choice of remedies. He had a lien on the ship. He had a right to charge the owner. He had also a right to charge the defendants on their contract. He may abandon one remedy, and resort to another.

Motion rejected.

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

[374]*374January 13th, 1810.

Bat, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court, Gkimke, J., absent. This isa case not within the statute of frauds. The- jury were instructed to enquire whether the plaintiff did not contract with the-defendants, and look to them for compensation. A consignee may make himself liable. The pvidenee was strong to prove that the plaintiff considered the contract to be a personal one with the defendants, and relied on them for payment. He might have afterwards taken up the idea that he had a lien on the ship, or he might have thought so from the first; but if he was right or wrong in this idea, it would not impair the dependence he had, or the contract wifh the defendants. A party may have a choice of remedies. He had a lien on the ship. He had a right to charge the owner. He had also a right to charge the defendants on their contract. He may abandon one remedy, and resort to another.

Motion rejected.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 S.C.L. 371, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pritchard-v-muir-sc-1810.