Van Holten v. Lewis

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Van Holten v. Lewis

12 S.C.L. 12

DecidedJanuary 15, 1821

StatusPublished

This text of 12 S.C.L. 12 (Van Holten v. Lewis) 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

Van Holten v. Lewis, 12 S.C.L. 12 (S.C. 1821).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Colcock

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The counsel seemed to rely most strongly on the sitúa • tion of the parties, that this was the third Court, and the defendant ready for trial. Upon looking into the minutes of the Court, it appears that this motion was granted pn the last day of the Court, on which no issues are tried. There was therefore no improper exercise of that discretion with which the Court is unquestionably vested. This was in effect no more than a motion to plead double, which may be granted at any time so as not to operate as a surprise on the plaintiff. And here it was granted on the last day of one sitting, and the plaintiff of course vrould have time enough to reply and procure testimony, if any were necessary, before the sitting of the next Court. As to the inconsistency of the pleas, it is not greater than many which are daily admitted. For instance, in debt on bond, non est factum, and payment; and these are very common.

The motion is dismissed.

Justices Nottj Gantt, Johnson and Huger, concurred.

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

Mr. Justice Colcock

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The counsel seemed to rely most strongly on the sitúa • tion of the parties, that this was the third Court, and the defendant ready for trial. Upon looking into the minutes of the Court, it appears that this motion was granted pn the last day of the Court, on which no issues are tried. There was therefore no improper exercise of that discretion with which the Court is unquestionably vested. This was in effect no more than a motion to plead double, which may be granted at any time so as not to operate as a surprise on the plaintiff. And here it was granted on the last day of one sitting, and the plaintiff of course vrould have time enough to reply and procure testimony, if any were necessary, before the sitting of the next Court. As to the inconsistency of the pleas, it is not greater than many which are daily admitted. For instance, in debt on bond, non est factum, and payment; and these are very common.

The motion is dismissed.

Justices Nottj Gantt, Johnson and Huger, concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 S.C.L. 12, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-holten-v-lewis-sc-1821.