Smith v. Affanassieffe

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Smith v. Affanassieffe

31 S.C.L. 334

DecidedFebruary 15, 1846

StatusPublished

This text of 31 S.C.L. 334 (Smith v. Affanassieffe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Smith v. Affanassieffe, 31 S.C.L. 334 (S.C. Ct. App. 1846).

Pincite

Opinion

Curia, per EvaNS, J.

It is essential to a writ that it have the seal of the court and be signed by the clerk. The paper in this case is deficient in these particulars, and the insufficiency of the writ has not been waived by any subsequent act of the defendant so as to make him a party in court. There has been no action commenced and prosecuted between these parties so as to entitle either of them to costs, and the motion to reverse the decision of the Recorder is, therefore, granted.

O’Neall and Frost, J.T. concurred. Richardson, J. absent from indisposition at the hearing.

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

Curia, per EvaNS, J.

It is essential to a writ that it have the seal of the court and be signed by the clerk. The paper in this case is deficient in these particulars, and the insufficiency of the writ has not been waived by any subsequent act of the defendant so as to make him a party in court. There has been no action commenced and prosecuted between these parties so as to entitle either of them to costs, and the motion to reverse the decision of the Recorder is, therefore, granted.

O’Neall and Frost, J.T. concurred. Richardson, J. absent from indisposition at the hearing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 S.C.L. 334, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-affanassieffe-scctapp-1846.