State v. Foot

Supreme Court of South Carolina

State v. Foot

9 S.C.L. 123

Supreme Court of South Carolina·Decided May 15, 1818·Published

Opinion

The opinion of the Co.urt was delivered by

Mr. Justice Cheves.

This case was brought before me at the last Court for Chester District, at the moment the Court was about to adjourn. The counsel for the defendants contended that a seal was essential to the validity of a recognizance, and the solicitor did not controvert this position, except under the act of Assembly of 1787. I was of opinion that, if before the act, a seal was necessary, it was not dispensed with by the act, and I am of the same opinion still: but I am also of [124]*124opinion, no seal was necessary before the act, to give validity to this recognizance, and that, there-1 f°re5 ^Ie judgment of the District Court should be set aside.

Bay, JYott, Colcoclc, Gantt, and Johnson, J. concurred.

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

The opinion of the Co.urt was delivered by

Mr. Justice Cheves.

This case was brought before me at the last Court for Chester District, at the moment the Court was about to adjourn. The counsel for the defendants contended that a seal was essential to the validity of a recognizance, and the solicitor did not controvert this position, except under the act of Assembly of 1787. I was of opinion that, if before the act, a seal was necessary, it was not dispensed with by the act, and I am of the same opinion still: but I am also of [124]*124opinion, no seal was necessary before the act, to give validity to this recognizance, and that, there-1 f°re5 ^Ie judgment of the District Court should be set aside.

Bay, JYott, Colcoclc, Gantt, and Johnson, J. concurred.

State v. Foot, 9 S.C.L. 123 (S.C. 1818).

Pincite

9 S.C.L. 123 (State v. Foot) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.