Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

2 S.C.L. 533

Simpson v. Geddes

Court of Appeals of South Carolina · decided 1804-07-01

<p>Where one copartner appears, and the other makes default,there-gular mode of proceeding is, for the plaintiff to go oa and get judgment for the whole debt &- gainst the one appearing, audio execute his writ of inquiry against the one making default, for the whole also.</p> <p>A letter written by one co* partner afteF the dissolution of the copart-nership, acknowledging the justness of a debt, wiU hind theotheru And endor&e-s ment of a note by one executor, is good $ hut if the letters testamentary are called for, they must be produced, to shew I)is authority for that purpose.</p> <p>len-ofFart-asr. * “i-.u’</p> <p>3 Salk. 120. ;i Bac.</p> <p>1 Cromp. 3ó:>.</p> <p>See also flic enseof 7VWv/>~ son and Howard ads. Jtd-minisiratcritw ’ Kelly9 post.</p>

Decided 1804-07-01

¶1In regard to the second count in the declaration, a majority of the judges, Grimke, Waties and Lee, were of opinion, that the letters testamentary should have been produced, to show the power of the executor of William Gist to transfer the note ; and that there should be a new trial, unless the plaintiif would agree to release as much of the damages as the note and interest amounted to, which would leave the note out of the question,

BREVARD,

¶2contra, was of opinion, that the not demanding oyer of the letters testamentary, was a tacit admission of them, and that it was too late, after verdict, to take advantage of the party’s own laches, in not making such demand, if he was doubtful of the executor’s authority to negotiate the note.

Bay,

¶3who had presided at the trial, and who had overruled this objection, could give no opinion on this motion»

¶4There was, therefore, a rule for new trial nisi, fee»,

¶5N. B. The plaintiff’s attorney afterwards released the damages on the 2d count, which left the Verdict on the 1st one unimpeached.

/2/scl/533 · .json · Public domain