Treasurers v. Ex'ors M'Pherson

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Treasurers v. Ex'ors M'Pherson

27 S.C.L. 69

DecidedDecember 15, 1841

StatusPublished

This text of 27 S.C.L. 69 (Treasurers v. Ex'ors M'Pherson) 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

Treasurers v. Ex'ors M'Pherson, 27 S.C.L. 69 (S.C. Ct. App. 1841).

Pincite

Opinion

Curia, per

O’Neall J.

. We are satisfied with the decision of the Judge below. It has been again and again ruled;,that the presumption of performance of the condition, upon an official bond, from the lapse of time, will arise, as well as the presumption of payment of a money bond. It is no objection that the State is the party against whom the presumption is set up. It is'true, that the maxim “nullum tern-pus occurrit regi,” applies to the State, but by that I understand that the King, in England, and the State, here, cannot be barred by the statute, of limitations. A legal presumption is not set up as a statutory bar. It is a legal conclusion after the lapse of twenty years (without some countervailing proof,) that a fact then existed,- (which cannot now be proved,) sufficient to defeat the right of the State. Such as that the State, twenty years ago, granted a tract of land, or received the money charged on the books of the Treasury against Sheriffs, Ford and Ferguson. The motion is dismissed.

JOHN BELTON O’NEALL. .

We concur: J. S. Richardson, Josiah J. Evans, B. J. Earle, A. P. Butler, D. L. Warlaw.

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

Curia, per

O’Neall J.

. We are satisfied with the decision of the Judge below. It has been again and again ruled;,that the presumption of performance of the condition, upon an official bond, from the lapse of time, will arise, as well as the presumption of payment of a money bond. It is no objection that the State is the party against whom the presumption is set up. It is'true, that the maxim “nullum tern-pus occurrit regi,” applies to the State, but by that I understand that the King, in England, and the State, here, cannot be barred by the statute, of limitations. A legal presumption is not set up as a statutory bar. It is a legal conclusion after the lapse of twenty years (without some countervailing proof,) that a fact then existed,- (which cannot now be proved,) sufficient to defeat the right of the State. Such as that the State, twenty years ago, granted a tract of land, or received the money charged on the books of the Treasury against Sheriffs, Ford and Ferguson. The motion is dismissed.

JOHN BELTON O’NEALL. .

We concur: J. S. Richardson, Josiah J. Evans, B. J. Earle, A. P. Butler, D. L. Warlaw.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 S.C.L. 69, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/treasurers-v-exors-mpherson-scctapp-1841.