Terrill v. Adm'r of Richards

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Terrill v. Adm'r of Richards

10 S.C.L. 20

DecidedNovember 15, 1817

StatusPublished

This text of 10 S.C.L. 20 (Terrill v. Adm'r of Richards) 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

Terrill v. Adm'r of Richards, 10 S.C.L. 20 (S.C. 1817).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Colcock, J.

The jury are undoubtedly the proper judges of facts, but it cannot be contended, that it is their exclusive privilege to determine on the existence, or non-existence of a copartnership, which does not depend on facts alone, but rather on the legal result of these facts. Here there was no dispute about the facts; they all appear on the agreement, and there can be no doubt that these parties were copartners, as to the subject-matter of purchase named in the agreement. Nor is it a [14]*14ground on which one copartner can sue, that his copartner is dead, if the suit be brought for their copartnership transactions. But as there is a separate and independent covenant contained in this deed, whereby the intestate agreed to pay a particular sum of money, on or before a given I think the action may be maintained. 2 Dun. and East, p. 483 ; 1 Salk. 9 ; Gould’s Espinasse, 190. *Yet, there is little doubt in my mind, but this case will eventuate in a Court of Equity. The motion of the plaintiff is granted.

Yancey, for the motion. Bowie, contra. Grimke, Nott, Cheyes, Gantt and Johnson, JJ., concurred.

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

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Colcock, J.

The jury are undoubtedly the proper judges of facts, but it cannot be contended, that it is their exclusive privilege to determine on the existence, or non-existence of a copartnership, which does not depend on facts alone, but rather on the legal result of these facts. Here there was no dispute about the facts; they all appear on the agreement, and there can be no doubt that these parties were copartners, as to the subject-matter of purchase named in the agreement. Nor is it a [14]*14ground on which one copartner can sue, that his copartner is dead, if the suit be brought for their copartnership transactions. But as there is a separate and independent covenant contained in this deed, whereby the intestate agreed to pay a particular sum of money, on or before a given I think the action may be maintained. 2 Dun. and East, p. 483 ; 1 Salk. 9 ; Gould’s Espinasse, 190. *Yet, there is little doubt in my mind, but this case will eventuate in a Court of Equity. The motion of the plaintiff is granted.

Yancey, for the motion. Bowie, contra. Grimke, Nott, Cheyes, Gantt and Johnson, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 S.C.L. 20, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/terrill-v-admr-of-richards-sc-1817.