Sims v. Tyre

5 S.C.L. 249
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedNovember 15, 1812
StatusPublished

This text of 5 S.C.L. 249 (Sims v. Tyre) 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. Tyre, 5 S.C.L. 249 (S.C. 1812).

Opinion

Colcock, J.

As to the first ground, I do not think the defendant can maintain it, for the son was unquestionably his agent, to perform the contract originally entered into between the father and Ming. The wagon and team were proved to have belonged to the father, and the defendant is therefore liable, if there be any cause of action.

On the second ground, I am of opinion, that the plaintiff’s suit should have been brought on the written contract, in the joint names of Ming and Sims, and that no action can be supported by Sims alone, for the subject of that receipt. The^ verdict in this case would be no bar to an action brought by Ming, or by Ming and Sims. Thus the defendant might be subjected to three suits for the delivery of the cotton. The receipt was joint, and therefore the [251]*251properly must be considered as belonging to them both; and if so, was liable for the carriage to Virginia. I am, therefore, of opinion, the motion should be granted.

Nott, Geimke, and Brevard, Js., concurred.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
5 S.C.L. 249, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sims-v-tyre-sc-1812.