Simpson v. Barry

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Simpson v. Barry

27 S.C.L. 369

DecidedMay 15, 1842

StatusPublished

This text of 27 S.C.L. 369 (Simpson v. Barry) 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

Simpson v. Barry, 27 S.C.L. 369 (S.C. 1842).

Pincite

Opinion

Curia, per

O’Neall, J.

If it be true that the money of the deceased was deposited by the defendant in one of the banks of Augusta, Georgia, in his own name (and it is perhaps in this point of view, on a non-suit, that the case should be regarded,) it is then necessary to inquire, whether this case can be sustained 1 The defendant, it must be remembered, was the agent and baillee of the deceased; he acted in precise conformity to his instructions, and it is plain that the deceased would have had.no right of action, unless the defendant had refused, upon demand made, to account for the fund. The present plaintiff has no other or greater rights than his intestate. The defendant could not, therefore, be regarded as debtor to the deceased, until he had in some way appropriated his money to his own use. No demand was proved, This is enough to show that the action now under consideration cannot be sustained. It is, therefore, unnecessary to consider the effect of the two administrations in Georgia and South Carolina. . '

The motion is dismissed.

Evans, Earle and Butler, JJ., concurred.

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

Curia, per

O’Neall, J.

If it be true that the money of the deceased was deposited by the defendant in one of the banks of Augusta, Georgia, in his own name (and it is perhaps in this point of view, on a non-suit, that the case should be regarded,) it is then necessary to inquire, whether this case can be sustained 1 The defendant, it must be remembered, was the agent and baillee of the deceased; he acted in precise conformity to his instructions, and it is plain that the deceased would have had.no right of action, unless the defendant had refused, upon demand made, to account for the fund. The present plaintiff has no other or greater rights than his intestate. The defendant could not, therefore, be regarded as debtor to the deceased, until he had in some way appropriated his money to his own use. No demand was proved, This is enough to show that the action now under consideration cannot be sustained. It is, therefore, unnecessary to consider the effect of the two administrations in Georgia and South Carolina. . '

The motion is dismissed.

Evans, Earle and Butler, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 S.C.L. 369, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simpson-v-barry-sc-1842.