Swicard v. Wislson

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Swicard v. Wislson

9 S.C.L. 218

DecidedMay 15, 1818

StatusPublished

This text of 9 S.C.L. 218 (Swicard v. Wislson) 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

Swicard v. Wislson, 9 S.C.L. 218 (S.C. 1818).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Nott.

There can be no doubt that an administrator or executor may submit matters of account to arbitration. (5 D, and E. 6. 7 do. 453. 1 do. 691.) And where an award is made ia pursuance of [219]*219such submission, the law implies a promise to pay. Not, indeed, that he shall pay out of his own estate, but out of the assets in his hands, to be administered, if he has any.

It does appear, from the face of the brief, somewhat doubtful whether the evidence supported the declaration. But as the proceedings are not before us, we cannot see that it does not contain a count to which the evidence applied. And as the party himself has not thought proper to take the exception, the Court is not bound to take it for him, particularly as it goes, to defeat the justice of the case. I am of opinion a new trial ought to be granted.

Colcock, Cheves, and Gantt, J. concurred; Grimké and Johnson, J. dissented.

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

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Nott.

There can be no doubt that an administrator or executor may submit matters of account to arbitration. (5 D, and E. 6. 7 do. 453. 1 do. 691.) And where an award is made ia pursuance of [219]*219such submission, the law implies a promise to pay. Not, indeed, that he shall pay out of his own estate, but out of the assets in his hands, to be administered, if he has any.

It does appear, from the face of the brief, somewhat doubtful whether the evidence supported the declaration. But as the proceedings are not before us, we cannot see that it does not contain a count to which the evidence applied. And as the party himself has not thought proper to take the exception, the Court is not bound to take it for him, particularly as it goes, to defeat the justice of the case. I am of opinion a new trial ought to be granted.

Colcock, Cheves, and Gantt, J. concurred; Grimké and Johnson, J. dissented.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 S.C.L. 218, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/swicard-v-wislson-sc-1818.