Treasurers v. Oswald

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Treasurers v. Oswald

27 S.C.L. 145

DecidedFebruary 15, 1842

StatusPublished

This text of 27 S.C.L. 145 (Treasurers v. Oswald) 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

Treasurers v. Oswald, 27 S.C.L. 145 (S.C. 1842).

Pincite

Opinion

Curia, per

O’Neall, J.

On the authority of the rule stated by Mr. Sergt. Williams in his note 4, to Arlington vs. Merricke, 2d Saund. 411, that “ when a subject comprehends multiplicity of matter, then, in order to avoid prolixity, the law allows of general pleading,” we think the demurrer ought to have been overruled. For, although the replication is very general, and does not even state from what causes the money arose, which the replication alleges that the sheriff received for and on account of the Treasurers, yet the fact stated that it was money received for and on account of the plaintiffs, brings it within the cases referred to by Sergt. Williams, and therefore, we are disposed to sustain the replication.

The motion to reverse the decision below is granted, the defendants’ demurrer is overruled, and they are ordered to rejoin.

JOHN B. O’NEALL.

We concur. J. S. Richardson, J. J. Evans, A. P. Butler, D. L. Wardlaw.

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

Curia, per

O’Neall, J.

On the authority of the rule stated by Mr. Sergt. Williams in his note 4, to Arlington vs. Merricke, 2d Saund. 411, that “ when a subject comprehends multiplicity of matter, then, in order to avoid prolixity, the law allows of general pleading,” we think the demurrer ought to have been overruled. For, although the replication is very general, and does not even state from what causes the money arose, which the replication alleges that the sheriff received for and on account of the Treasurers, yet the fact stated that it was money received for and on account of the plaintiffs, brings it within the cases referred to by Sergt. Williams, and therefore, we are disposed to sustain the replication.

The motion to reverse the decision below is granted, the defendants’ demurrer is overruled, and they are ordered to rejoin.

JOHN B. O’NEALL.

We concur. J. S. Richardson, J. J. Evans, A. P. Butler, D. L. Wardlaw.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 S.C.L. 145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/treasurers-v-oswald-sc-1842.