Goddard v. Bulow
Supreme Court of South Carolina
This cause was tried in the Spring Term, 1815, in Charleston, before Mr. Justice Nott. The plaintiffs were the affreighters of the ship Ariadne, of which the defendant was the owner; and this ':<‘was an action for mqney had and receivid, to recover back the sum of $3,985.45, with interest thereon, being so much over-paid, as was contended on the part of the plaintiffs, by them in the manner following: 1. Over freight paid on a cargo of rice and cotton, from Charleston to…
Read the full summary
This cause was tried in the Spring Term, 1815, in Charleston, before Mr. Justice Nott. The plaintiffs were the affreighters of the ship Ariadne, of which the defendant was the owner; and this ':<‘was an action for mqney had and receivid, to recover back the sum of $3,985.45, with interest thereon, being so much over-paid, as was contended on the part of the plaintiffs, by them in the manner following: 1. Over freight paid on a cargo of rice and cotton, from Charleston to Lisbon ; having paid on the- gross weight, whereas, by the charter party, they were bound to pay on the nett weight only.…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Nott, Ji
The motion for a new trial in this'case, is predicated on several misdirections of the presiding Judge, on the points of law, and errors of the jury in matters of fact. But I believe the whole case may be considered under the question of misdirection, except that part which relates to the credibility of the witnesses. But as that was a matter for the consideration of the jury,- the Court consider it as settled by their verdict ; for although there was two witnesses to one, yet the testimony of one credible witness is worth more than that of two…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Vaughn Development, Inc. v. Westvaco Development Corp.Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 2007
- Dixie Bell, Inc. v. ReddCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2007