Walker v. Berry

Decided December 15, 1854

Court of Appeals of South Carolina · decided 1854-12-15

<p>Defendant in sum. pro. "being served -with interrogatories to answer “whether he had purchased the goods charged in the account sued on, on credit, and at the prices charged;” answered, that he had, hut that he had paid the account; — Held, that plaintiff was entitled to a decree — defendant’s answer as to the payment not being evidence for him.</p>

Decided 1854-12-15

¶1Per Curiam.

¶2In this case it is only necessary to refer to Clark vs. Meek, 2 Bail. 391. According to the rule settled by that ease, the defendant’s answer, that he had paid the debt, could not discharge him.

¶3The decree ought therefore to have been for the plaintiff. But inasmuch as it is alleged here, that the defendant, if the Court had not ruled in his favor, might have given other evidence, a decree will not be now rendered for the plaintiff. Another opportunity of discharging himself properly will be given to the defendant. A new trial is therefore ordered.

O’Neall, WaRdlaw, Withers, Clover, and Munro, JJ., concurring.

¶4 JSTew trial ordered.