Siau v. Pigott

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Siau v. Pigott

10 S.C.L. 124

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

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Oheves, J.

This case is not distinguishable from the cases of William v. Leper, (3 Burrows, 1886,) and Houlditch v. Milne, (3 Esp. [75]*75cases, 86.) The plaintiff had a lien on the vessel, which he could have immediately enforced by the process of the Admiralty, and which he parted with on the defendant’s promise to pay.

Dunlcin, for the motion.

The decree must be affirmed.

Colcock, Gantt and Johnson, JJ., concurred.

See 3 Strob. 177, 209; 1 Strob. 5; 4 Strob. 455; 1 Sp. 7; 3 Hill, 41; 2 McM. 61; 1 Bail. 14; 1 McC. 486, 575.

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

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Oheves, J.

This case is not distinguishable from the cases of William v. Leper, (3 Burrows, 1886,) and Houlditch v. Milne, (3 Esp. [75]*75cases, 86.) The plaintiff had a lien on the vessel, which he could have immediately enforced by the process of the Admiralty, and which he parted with on the defendant’s promise to pay.

Dunlcin, for the motion.

The decree must be affirmed.

Colcock, Gantt and Johnson, JJ., concurred.

See 3 Strob. 177, 209; 1 Strob. 5; 4 Strob. 455; 1 Sp. 7; 3 Hill, 41; 2 McM. 61; 1 Bail. 14; 1 McC. 486, 575.

Siau v. Pigott, 10 S.C.L. 124 (S.C. 1818).

Pincite

10 S.C.L. 124 (Siau v. Pigott) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.