Wells v. Reynolds

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Wells v. Reynolds

5 S.C.L. 407

DecidedNovember 15, 1814

StatusPublished

This text of 5 S.C.L. 407 (Wells v. Reynolds) 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

Wells v. Reynolds, 5 S.C.L. 407 (S.C. 1814).

Pincite

Opinion

Nott, J.

1st. The summary jurisdiction of the court is limited to twenty poundsr and whether the claim is setup by the plaintiff or defendant, the jurisdiction is the same. The discount, therefore, was properly rejected in this case. See 1st Nott and M’Gord, [408]*408192, 194. 2d do. 487. 2d. In some cases, perhaps, no incon, ven*once would result from permitting a defendant to withdraw, or' relinquish a part of a discount, and set off the remainder; but that could not be done, where the demand consisted of one entire sum % becauge the whole principle would still be involved in the decision. The same thing might also happen, and oftentimes would, where it consisted of several distinct items. The best way, therefore, will be to adopt the rule of the court below ;• to reject the discount in-all cases, where it appears upon the face of it, that the court has-no jurisdiction. The motion in this case must be rejected.

Colcock, Brevard, and Grimke, Js., concurred.

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

Nott, J.

1st. The summary jurisdiction of the court is limited to twenty poundsr and whether the claim is setup by the plaintiff or defendant, the jurisdiction is the same. The discount, therefore, was properly rejected in this case. See 1st Nott and M’Gord, [408]*408192, 194. 2d do. 487. 2d. In some cases, perhaps, no incon, ven*once would result from permitting a defendant to withdraw, or' relinquish a part of a discount, and set off the remainder; but that could not be done, where the demand consisted of one entire sum % becauge the whole principle would still be involved in the decision. The same thing might also happen, and oftentimes would, where it consisted of several distinct items. The best way, therefore, will be to adopt the rule of the court below ;• to reject the discount in-all cases, where it appears upon the face of it, that the court has-no jurisdiction. The motion in this case must be rejected.

Colcock, Brevard, and Grimke, Js., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 S.C.L. 407, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wells-v-reynolds-sc-1814.