State Bank v. Baker

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State Bank v. Baker

14 S.C.L. 281

DecidedApril 15, 1825

StatusPublished

This text of 14 S.C.L. 281 (State Bank v. Baker) 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

State Bank v. Baker, 14 S.C.L. 281 (S.C. Ct. App. 1825).

Pincite

Opinion

JohNSon, J.

The position contended for in support of this motion is, that on the return of a pluries writ, at any time within four years, after the return of an original, the plaintiff may connect them together, by making out the cos-[282]*282tinuances out of court, or issue the intermediate writs, and thus save the bar of the statute; and it would seem that this practice is supported by the English authorities. The reasons on which it is founded, are the expence and inconvenience of purchasing a new original, which do not apply to the state of things existing here* and a different practice prevails.

Wm. F. DeSaussure and James Holmes for the motion. S. D. Miller contra.

The case of Parker vs. Grayson, (1 Nott and M‘Cord 173,) is decisive as to this. There, nearly four years had elapsed between the return of the original and the suing out the alias, and the court sjay that no fiction of law can connect them together, where more than a year has intervened. The same state of facts exists in this case, and the same rule applies. Motion refused.

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

JohNSon, J.

The position contended for in support of this motion is, that on the return of a pluries writ, at any time within four years, after the return of an original, the plaintiff may connect them together, by making out the cos-[282]*282tinuances out of court, or issue the intermediate writs, and thus save the bar of the statute; and it would seem that this practice is supported by the English authorities. The reasons on which it is founded, are the expence and inconvenience of purchasing a new original, which do not apply to the state of things existing here* and a different practice prevails.

Wm. F. DeSaussure and James Holmes for the motion. S. D. Miller contra.

The case of Parker vs. Grayson, (1 Nott and M‘Cord 173,) is decisive as to this. There, nearly four years had elapsed between the return of the original and the suing out the alias, and the court sjay that no fiction of law can connect them together, where more than a year has intervened. The same state of facts exists in this case, and the same rule applies. Motion refused.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 S.C.L. 281, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-bank-v-baker-scctapp-1825.