Bennet v. McFall

Decided November 15, 1816

Supreme Court of South Carolina · decided 1816-11-15

Summary Process. John McFall, the defendant, had formerly commenced an action in the name of Moses Holland, against the plaintiff, on the trial of which, judgment was adven for the defendant. The costs were then ° ... taxed, and an execution issued against Moses Hoi-land, the nominal plaintiff, which was returned nulla bona. This action was then brought against John Mc-Fall, to recover the costs against him.

Decided 1816-11-15

Colcock, J.

¶1There can be no principle of law produced in support of this action. The demand was not negotiable in its nature, and the present defendant is to be considered as the agent of Holland, by whose authority he brought .the first action. The principal is answerable for the acts of his agent, but not the agent for those of his principal.

¶2 *770If McFall had not sued the plaintiff, Holland would have done so. No injury9 then, has resulted Bennet, for the acts of McFall alone: and, of course, no responsibility can attach to him. I am, therefore, of opinion that the motion should be rejected.

Justices Grimke, Nott and Johnson concurred.Gantt, dissented.