Rodgers v. Norton

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Rodgers v. Norton

16 S.C.L. 5

DecidedNovember 15, 1823

StatusPublished

This text of 16 S.C.L. 5 (Rodgers v. Norton) 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

Rodgers v. Norton, 16 S.C.L. 5 (S.C. 1823).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Huger,

The act of 1788, for establishing the bounds of the Prisons, &cc. declares, “ Whereas humanity requires that the confinement of persons on civil process should be less rigorous: Be it enacted, that all prisoners on jnesne process, in any civil [6]*6action, &c. on complying With the requisitions contained in this act, shall be entitled, &c. to the rules.” The words are very broad, <£Prisons and Prisoners,” and these are used throughout-the act.. No where are the words “ free white person” employed. The act therefore does not exclude free persons o. color: nor would it be just, after forcing them into Court, to. Withhold a privilege so important and which is granted to all others. The policy of the law appears to require no such dis crimination.

The motion is refused. —

Johnson, Roit, Gantt, Richard* son, Colcock, Justices concurred.

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

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Huger,

The act of 1788, for establishing the bounds of the Prisons, &cc. declares, “ Whereas humanity requires that the confinement of persons on civil process should be less rigorous: Be it enacted, that all prisoners on jnesne process, in any civil [6]*6action, &c. on complying With the requisitions contained in this act, shall be entitled, &c. to the rules.” The words are very broad, <£Prisons and Prisoners,” and these are used throughout-the act.. No where are the words “ free white person” employed. The act therefore does not exclude free persons o. color: nor would it be just, after forcing them into Court, to. Withhold a privilege so important and which is granted to all others. The policy of the law appears to require no such dis crimination.

The motion is refused. —

Johnson, Roit, Gantt, Richard* son, Colcock, Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 S.C.L. 5, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodgers-v-norton-sc-1823.