Righton v. Sumter

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Righton v. Sumter

13 S.C.L. 412

DecidedMay 15, 1823

StatusPublished

This text of 13 S.C.L. 412 (Righton v. Sumter) 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

Righton v. Sumter, 13 S.C.L. 412 (S.C. 1823).

Pincite

Opinions

Mr, Justice Colcocle

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is not an amendment, it is a discontinuance or nolle prosequi, (1 Tidds Practice, 628-6 30, J as to one defendant, which does not necessarily change the defence. Any alteration in the body of the declaration, either in fqrm_or substancey would necessarily require an 9I7 [413]*413teration in the pleadings, and, then, there may be a necessity for other witnesses, than those who had been subpoenaed, consequently, a good ground of continuance. Here the plea was non est factum, and it was as competent for the remaining defendant to have supported his plea after his co-defendant’s name was stricken from the record, ae it would have been had it remained. There may have been a difference,- but if there was, it is presumable the defendant was not prepared to support it.

Mayrant, for the motion. J)eSaussure, contra.

The motion is dismissed.

Justices Richardson, Johnson and Huger, concurred,

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

Mr, Justice Colcocle

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is not an amendment, it is a discontinuance or nolle prosequi, (1 Tidds Practice, 628-6 30, J as to one defendant, which does not necessarily change the defence. Any alteration in the body of the declaration, either in fqrm_or substancey would necessarily require an 9I7 [413]*413teration in the pleadings, and, then, there may be a necessity for other witnesses, than those who had been subpoenaed, consequently, a good ground of continuance. Here the plea was non est factum, and it was as competent for the remaining defendant to have supported his plea after his co-defendant’s name was stricken from the record, ae it would have been had it remained. There may have been a difference,- but if there was, it is presumable the defendant was not prepared to support it.

Mayrant, for the motion. J)eSaussure, contra.

The motion is dismissed.

Justices Richardson, Johnson and Huger, concurred,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 S.C.L. 412, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/righton-v-sumter-sc-1823.