Hammarskold v. Bull
Court of Appeals of South Carolina
BEFORE O’NEALL, J., AT RICHLAND, SPRING TERM, 1855. This was an action of assumpsit. The writ directed the the sheriff “ to attach the bodies of William J. Bull” and the other defendants, naming them,” Chairman and Commissioners of the New State Capitol, &c., “to answer to P. H. Hammarskold in a plea of trespass on the case and so forth; and also for certain promises and assumptions by the said William J. Bull and others, the defendants, to the said” &c., “made and not…
Read the full summary
BEFORE O’NEALL, J., AT RICHLAND, SPRING TERM, 1855. This was an action of assumpsit. The writ directed the the sheriff “ to attach the bodies of William J. Bull” and the other defendants, naming them,” Chairman and Commissioners of the New State Capitol, &c., “to answer to P. H. Hammarskold in a plea of trespass on the case and so forth; and also for certain promises and assumptions by the said William J. Bull and others, the defendants, to the said” &c., “made and not performed,” &c. The declaration, which was filed the 30th January, 1855, after reciting that the defendants, naming them, “…
1DissentO’Neall, J.
In this case I adhere to my circuit decision, and I deeply regret that my brethren have thought themselves justified in holding that the State may be made amenable to our jurisdiction by suing her officers, and agents. The latter acting without pay, are, indeed, in a condition very much to be pitied, if, on every contract made about the public business, they are liable to be sued. Has the Court any jurisdiction of such a case ? I utterly deny it.
Blackstone in his 3d vol. 255, tells us that no action lies against the King, and of consequence against the State, with us. Hogs the same rule hold…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Mannhardt v. SoderstromSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1806