Treasurers v. Tarrant

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Treasurers v. Tarrant

19 S.C.L. 7

DecidedJanuary 15, 1833

StatusPublished

This text of 19 S.C.L. 7 (Treasurers v. Tarrant) 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. Tarrant, 19 S.C.L. 7 (S.C. Ct. App. 1833).

Pincite

Opinion

O’Neall J.

The act of 1792 (1st Faust 21.3) provides “ that where rules or process to revive proceedings at law, cannot be served upon persons because of their absence from, and without the limits of this State, it shall be sufficient to post such rules or process upon the Court house door of the district in which such absent persons had their last residence.” The words of the act are plain and obvious ; it requires that “ the rules or process,” shall be posted on the door of the Court house of the district in which the absentees last resided. A literal construction might require the original rule or process to be posted ; but a copy of either, would be a compliance with the terms used, and be within the meaning of the law, and this practice has the sanction of the case of Henry v. Ferguson, decided by the Court of Appeals, Spring Term 1830. But a mere notice that a scire facias has been issued against absent defendants, cannot make them parties. The posting of such a paper on the door of the Court house is not a compliance with the act. The act is a remedial one; but still, however liberally we might be disposed to construe it, yet we are not at liberty to adopt such a latí-[8]*8fade oi’ construction as would introduce a mode of proceeding essentially different from that pointed out by tile UCt.

The motion to reverse the decision of the Judge below, over-ruling the defendant’s demurrer, is granted.

Johnson J, Concurred. Harper J. Absent.

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

O’Neall J.

The act of 1792 (1st Faust 21.3) provides “ that where rules or process to revive proceedings at law, cannot be served upon persons because of their absence from, and without the limits of this State, it shall be sufficient to post such rules or process upon the Court house door of the district in which such absent persons had their last residence.” The words of the act are plain and obvious ; it requires that “ the rules or process,” shall be posted on the door of the Court house of the district in which the absentees last resided. A literal construction might require the original rule or process to be posted ; but a copy of either, would be a compliance with the terms used, and be within the meaning of the law, and this practice has the sanction of the case of Henry v. Ferguson, decided by the Court of Appeals, Spring Term 1830. But a mere notice that a scire facias has been issued against absent defendants, cannot make them parties. The posting of such a paper on the door of the Court house is not a compliance with the act. The act is a remedial one; but still, however liberally we might be disposed to construe it, yet we are not at liberty to adopt such a latí-[8]*8fade oi’ construction as would introduce a mode of proceeding essentially different from that pointed out by tile UCt.

The motion to reverse the decision of the Judge below, over-ruling the defendant’s demurrer, is granted.

Johnson J, Concurred. Harper J. Absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 S.C.L. 7, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/treasurers-v-tarrant-scctapp-1833.