Smith v. Martin

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Smith v. Martin

4 S.C. Eq. 148

DecidedJune 15, 1810

StatusPublished

This text of 4 S.C. Eq. 148 (Smith v. Martin) 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. Martin, 4 S.C. Eq. 148 (S.C. Ct. App. 1810).

Pincite

Opinion

From this decree an appeal was made on the following grounds:

First, — That the bond in question should not be taken in equity, any more than at law, as a joint bond, or in any way chargeable upon the estate of John Martin, he being dead, and James Martin being the surviving-joint obligor.

Second, — That it was incumbent on Abram Smith ty have given notice of the pendency of his suit against Gondilock, to John Martin in his life, and to Joseph Palmer and Elizabeth Martin, after the death of J„ Martin,

Third, — That the land taken away from Smith by the event of the suit of Smith vs. Gondilock, was not warranted or necessarily comprehended in the bond in question.

The appeal was heard by the chancellors James, Thompson, Desaussure and Gaillard 3-ment the decree of the circuit court was affirmed. -and after argu-

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

From this decree an appeal was made on the following grounds:

First, — That the bond in question should not be taken in equity, any more than at law, as a joint bond, or in any way chargeable upon the estate of John Martin, he being dead, and James Martin being the surviving-joint obligor.

Second, — That it was incumbent on Abram Smith ty have given notice of the pendency of his suit against Gondilock, to John Martin in his life, and to Joseph Palmer and Elizabeth Martin, after the death of J„ Martin,

Third, — That the land taken away from Smith by the event of the suit of Smith vs. Gondilock, was not warranted or necessarily comprehended in the bond in question.

The appeal was heard by the chancellors James, Thompson, Desaussure and Gaillard 3-ment the decree of the circuit court was affirmed. -and after argu-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 S.C. Eq. 148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-martin-scctapp-1810.