Robert W. v. L. L.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Robert W. v. L. L.

2 Nott & McC. 204, 11 S.C.L. 204

Supreme Court of South Carolina·Decided November 15, 1819·Published

Opinion

*The opinion of the Court was delivered by [*205

Richardson, J.

The only question is, whether words charging a woman with a breach of chastity, are actionable ? That they are not actionable, without special damage following, has been long since settled, in the case of Boyd v. Brent.1 See also cases of Buys v. Gillespie, 2 John 115. Brooker Coffin, 5 John, 188.

To such decisions, 1 will hereby add, that this one of those decisions, springing from common law doctrines often complained of, but now requiring legislative aid to remedy after inveterate practice.

The motion is, therefore, unavoidably dismissed.

CoiiCocK, Nott, and Johnson, JJ., concurred, Gantt, J., dissented.

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

*The opinion of the Court was delivered by [*205

Richardson, J.

The only question is, whether words charging a woman with a breach of chastity, are actionable ? That they are not actionable, without special damage following, has been long since settled, in the case of Boyd v. Brent.1 See also cases of Buys v. Gillespie, 2 John 115. Brooker Coffin, 5 John, 188.

To such decisions, 1 will hereby add, that this one of those decisions, springing from common law doctrines often complained of, but now requiring legislative aid to remedy after inveterate practice.

The motion is, therefore, unavoidably dismissed.

CoiiCocK, Nott, and Johnson, JJ., concurred, Gantt, J., dissented.

Robert W. v. L. L., 2 Nott & McC. 204, 11 S.C.L. 204 (S.C. 1819).

Pincite

2 Nott & McC. 204 (Robert W. v. L. L.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.