Zinn v. Prior

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Zinn v. Prior

3 S.C.L. 482

DecidedApril 15, 1805

StatusPublished

This text of 3 S.C.L. 482 (Zinn v. Prior) 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

Zinn v. Prior, 3 S.C.L. 482 (S.C. 1805).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

(Grimkje, Waties, Bay, and Brevard, Justices.)

The decision of the district court was correct. The act oí 1748, authorizes the issuing of a writ, to be directed to five persons, who shall make partition, and shall make a return of the writ, under their hands and seals; but it does not authi-rize a majority of the five persons to do so. Wherever the law empowers a certain number of persons to do a joint act, they must all concur therein It was so decided in the case of the commissioners of inspection for Campbleton warehouse. Bay’s Rep. 348.

Motion refused.

Note. See 3 T. R 592. Where the legislature does not expressly require a joint execution of a power, and it would he attended with inconvenience to obtain it, the above construction does not hold. See Co. Litt. 113, 2 Inst. 380. 3 Vin. Abr. 421, 422. Bulst. 105.

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

Per Curiam.

(Grimkje, Waties, Bay, and Brevard, Justices.)

The decision of the district court was correct. The act oí 1748, authorizes the issuing of a writ, to be directed to five persons, who shall make partition, and shall make a return of the writ, under their hands and seals; but it does not authi-rize a majority of the five persons to do so. Wherever the law empowers a certain number of persons to do a joint act, they must all concur therein It was so decided in the case of the commissioners of inspection for Campbleton warehouse. Bay’s Rep. 348.

Motion refused.

Note. See 3 T. R 592. Where the legislature does not expressly require a joint execution of a power, and it would he attended with inconvenience to obtain it, the above construction does not hold. See Co. Litt. 113, 2 Inst. 380. 3 Vin. Abr. 421, 422. Bulst. 105.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 S.C.L. 482, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zinn-v-prior-sc-1805.