Thomas v. Gage

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Thomas v. Gage

5 S.C. Eq. 197

DecidedDecember 15, 1824

StatusPublished

This text of 5 S.C. Eq. 197 (Thomas v. Gage) 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

Thomas v. Gage, 5 S.C. Eq. 197 (S.C. Ct. App. 1824).

Pincite

Opinion

Chancellor Resaussure

delivered the opinion of the -Court,

A. W. Thompson, for appellants. Williams, for respondents.

We have considered this case with the attention due to it, and are of opinion that the decree is correct as far as it goes.. But we think that in opening the case as the decree does, it should have gone further, and decreed that the satisfaction entered on the judgment of Gage against H. Johnson should be set aside and the judgment revived. It is therefore ordered and adjudged, that the decree of the circuit court be affirmed, but that the satisfaction entered on the judgment against H. Johnson be set aside, and the judgment revived and be regarded as though satisfaction had not been entered thereon.

Chancellors Gaillard, Waties and Thompson concurred-

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

Chancellor Resaussure

delivered the opinion of the -Court,

A. W. Thompson, for appellants. Williams, for respondents.

We have considered this case with the attention due to it, and are of opinion that the decree is correct as far as it goes.. But we think that in opening the case as the decree does, it should have gone further, and decreed that the satisfaction entered on the judgment of Gage against H. Johnson should be set aside and the judgment revived. It is therefore ordered and adjudged, that the decree of the circuit court be affirmed, but that the satisfaction entered on the judgment against H. Johnson be set aside, and the judgment revived and be regarded as though satisfaction had not been entered thereon.

Chancellors Gaillard, Waties and Thompson concurred-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 S.C. Eq. 197, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-gage-scctapp-1824.