Sanders v. Rutland

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Sanders v. Rutland

12 S.C.L. 143

DecidedMay 15, 1821

StatusPublished

This text of 12 S.C.L. 143 (Sanders v. Rutland) 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

Sanders v. Rutland, 12 S.C.L. 143 (S.C. 1821).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Huger

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Infants are responsible for necessaries, and miserable would be their situation, if it were not so. In this case, prior to administration, there was no legal representative of the intestate’s property. There was no person on whom it particularly devolved to take charge of the infant. If its property were not responsible for its necessaries, it might have starved, though entitled to an abundance. For saving the child from want and starvation, the plaintifi [145]*145ought not to suffer. Her poverty rebuts the presumption of á gratuity; and the humanity and policy of the law are on the side of the plaintiff.

Glover, for the motion. MGord and Footman, contra.

This case has been brought within the equitable juris» diction of the Court, where the usual forms of proceeding are dispensed with; the motion must therefore prevail, and a new trial be ordered.

Justices Johnson ánd N'oti, concurred. Mr. Justice Richardson, dissented.

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

Mr. Justice Huger

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Infants are responsible for necessaries, and miserable would be their situation, if it were not so. In this case, prior to administration, there was no legal representative of the intestate’s property. There was no person on whom it particularly devolved to take charge of the infant. If its property were not responsible for its necessaries, it might have starved, though entitled to an abundance. For saving the child from want and starvation, the plaintifi [145]*145ought not to suffer. Her poverty rebuts the presumption of á gratuity; and the humanity and policy of the law are on the side of the plaintiff.

Glover, for the motion. MGord and Footman, contra.

This case has been brought within the equitable juris» diction of the Court, where the usual forms of proceeding are dispensed with; the motion must therefore prevail, and a new trial be ordered.

Justices Johnson ánd N'oti, concurred. Mr. Justice Richardson, dissented.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 S.C.L. 143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanders-v-rutland-sc-1821.