Vestry v. Cantey

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Vestry v. Cantey

14 S.C.L. 317

DecidedApril 15, 1825

StatusPublished

This text of 14 S.C.L. 317 (Vestry v. Cantey) 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

Vestry v. Cantey, 14 S.C.L. 317 (S.C. Ct. App. 1825).

Pincite

Opinion

Gantt, J.

delivered the opinion of the court. -

Thip case was tried before me, November Term, 1819, for Kershaw District, and on the plea ofthestatute of limitations, a verdict was found for the defendant, correspondent with an opinion expressed by thecourtto the jury, on the law of the case. .

The defendant has appealed, and rests his case on a supposed inaccuracy in the opinion given by the presiding judge (viz.) that the statute was as effectual tobar the Vestry and Wardens of a Parish, as any other description of persons. The court are of opinion that the charge [318]*318of the presiding judge was correct in law, and that the appellant can take nothing by his motion.

Johnson. Nott, Colcóck and Huger, concurred.

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

Gantt, J.

delivered the opinion of the court. -

Thip case was tried before me, November Term, 1819, for Kershaw District, and on the plea ofthestatute of limitations, a verdict was found for the defendant, correspondent with an opinion expressed by thecourtto the jury, on the law of the case. .

The defendant has appealed, and rests his case on a supposed inaccuracy in the opinion given by the presiding judge (viz.) that the statute was as effectual tobar the Vestry and Wardens of a Parish, as any other description of persons. The court are of opinion that the charge [318]*318of the presiding judge was correct in law, and that the appellant can take nothing by his motion.

Johnson. Nott, Colcóck and Huger, concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 S.C.L. 317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vestry-v-cantey-scctapp-1825.