Bennet v. M'Fall

Decided May 15, 1818

Supreme Court of South Carolina · decided 1818-05-15

John M-Fall, the defendant, had formerly com-7 7 J menced an action, in the name of Moses Holland, # . . i aga^n®l the plain tin, on the trial ot which, judgment was given for the defendant. The costs then taxed, and an execution issued against Moses Holland, the nominal plaintiff which was returned mllu bom. This action was then brought against John M-Fall, to recover the costs against him.

Decided 1818-05-15

¶1The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Colcocic.

¶2There 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. If *199M'-Fall had not sued the plaintiff, Holland would have done so. No injury, then, has resulted to JBennet from the acts of M-Fall alone, and of course no responsibility can attach to him. The motion is rejected.

Grimke, JYott, and Johnson, J. concurred.