Sims v. Saunders

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Sims v. Saunders

16 S.C.L. 374

DecidedNovember 15, 1824

StatusPublished

This text of 16 S.C.L. 374 (Sims v. Saunders) 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

Sims v. Saunders, 16 S.C.L. 374 (S.C. 1824).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Nott.

As a general rule of law, a person who has made a gift or done any other act, cannot be permitted to impeach it by his after declarations. — If therefore the gift in this case had been proved, the declarations of the donor ought to have been rejected: but the proof was imperfect and inconclusive. If the plaintiff had relied alone on the evidence of the gift and delivery, without resorting to subsequent declarations on her part, the defendant could not have been permitted to give such evidence. But as the plaintiff was obliged to resort to the conduct and [375]*375conversation of the donor to ascertain his int'ehtion, that testimony, like every other, ought to be given entire. The motion therefore must be refused.

■A. W. Thompson, for motion. Williams, -contra. Richardson, Huger, and Johnson, 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 Nott.

As a general rule of law, a person who has made a gift or done any other act, cannot be permitted to impeach it by his after declarations. — If therefore the gift in this case had been proved, the declarations of the donor ought to have been rejected: but the proof was imperfect and inconclusive. If the plaintiff had relied alone on the evidence of the gift and delivery, without resorting to subsequent declarations on her part, the defendant could not have been permitted to give such evidence. But as the plaintiff was obliged to resort to the conduct and [375]*375conversation of the donor to ascertain his int'ehtion, that testimony, like every other, ought to be given entire. The motion therefore must be refused.

■A. W. Thompson, for motion. Williams, -contra. Richardson, Huger, and Johnson, Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 S.C.L. 374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sims-v-saunders-sc-1824.