Robinson v. Stewart

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Robinson v. Stewart

30 S.C.L. 3

DecidedDecember 15, 1844

StatusPublished

This text of 30 S.C.L. 3 (Robinson v. Stewart) 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

Robinson v. Stewart, 30 S.C.L. 3 (S.C. Ct. App. 1844).

Pincite

Opinion

Curia, per

Evans, J.

This was an application made to me at Abbeville, for an issue to try whether the confession of judgment in this case should not be set aside for fraud. Both parties submitted affidavits. On the hearing the motion was refused; on the ground, that there was no reasonable ground to impeach the judgment.

If these motions are to be granted of course, on the dec[4]*4laration of a creditor that he believes the judgment to be fraudulent, the rule to shew cause and the investigation by the Judge is a useless ceremony. The rule seems to me to be, that the showing must be such as to excite a reasonable ground of suspicion. It did not seem to me that such evidence was offered, and I dismissed the motion. The majority of this court concur in that decision, and the motion to reverse it is dismissed.

O’Neall, Butler, Wardlaw and Frost, JJ. concurred.

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

Curia, per

Evans, J.

This was an application made to me at Abbeville, for an issue to try whether the confession of judgment in this case should not be set aside for fraud. Both parties submitted affidavits. On the hearing the motion was refused; on the ground, that there was no reasonable ground to impeach the judgment.

If these motions are to be granted of course, on the dec[4]*4laration of a creditor that he believes the judgment to be fraudulent, the rule to shew cause and the investigation by the Judge is a useless ceremony. The rule seems to me to be, that the showing must be such as to excite a reasonable ground of suspicion. It did not seem to me that such evidence was offered, and I dismissed the motion. The majority of this court concur in that decision, and the motion to reverse it is dismissed.

O’Neall, Butler, Wardlaw and Frost, JJ. concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 S.C.L. 3, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinson-v-stewart-scctapp-1844.