Seabrook v. King

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Seabrook v. King

10 S.C.L. 140

Supreme Court of South Carolina·Decided January 15, 1818·Published

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Gantt, J.

This case was brought up on a motion for a new trial, on the ground of misdirection, and I am of opinion that it should be allowed. The jury had certainly no discretion to give to the defendant this right of way, on the ground of convenience. The plaintiff’s right of sole enjoyment is steadfast and firm, unless the road had been established by law, or claimed by prescription. And as the jury were probably influenced in finding their verdict by that part of the charge which [85]*85related to the convenience of the parties, I am of opinion, that a new trial should be allowed.

Bichardson, Attorney General, for the motion. Hayne, contra. Colcock, Nott and Cheves, JJ., concurred.

See 2 McC. 445.

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

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Gantt, J.

This case was brought up on a motion for a new trial, on the ground of misdirection, and I am of opinion that it should be allowed. The jury had certainly no discretion to give to the defendant this right of way, on the ground of convenience. The plaintiff’s right of sole enjoyment is steadfast and firm, unless the road had been established by law, or claimed by prescription. And as the jury were probably influenced in finding their verdict by that part of the charge which [85]*85related to the convenience of the parties, I am of opinion, that a new trial should be allowed.

Bichardson, Attorney General, for the motion. Hayne, contra. Colcock, Nott and Cheves, JJ., concurred.

See 2 McC. 445.

Seabrook v. King, 10 S.C.L. 140 (S.C. 1818).

Pincite

10 S.C.L. 140 (Seabrook v. King) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.