State ex rel. Kelsey v. Rosborough
Court of Appeals of South Carolina
Before EvANs, J. at Chester, July, extra Term, 1845. The report of the presiding Judge is as follows. “ This was an action on the official bond of - D. G. Ca-been, late sheriff of Chester, for the negligent escape of one Polly. The plaintiffs, Kelsey and Halstead, had a judgment, by confession, against Polly & Cassels, for about $1957, with interest from the 6th April, 1839, on $1,720 58. All their property had been sold under older cases.
Read the full summary
Before EvANs, J. at Chester, July, extra Term, 1845. The report of the presiding Judge is as follows. “ This was an action on the official bond of - D. G. Ca-been, late sheriff of Chester, for the negligent escape of one Polly. The plaintiffs, Kelsey and Halstead, had a judgment, by confession, against Polly & Cassels, for about $1957, with interest from the 6th April, 1839, on $1,720 58. All their property had been sold under older cases. In the ca. sa. the plaintiffs are styled Charles Kelsey, George Kelsey and Job H. Halstead. In the declaration in this case, in assigning the breach of the…
1Opinion of the Court
Curia, per Frost, J.
Among the grounds of appeal presented by the defendant, he has only insisted, in this court, on that for a non-suit.
If the ca. sa. had been the cause of action, a variance between the descriptive statement of it in the declaration , which would have been necessary, and the instrument, when produced in evidence, would have been a good ground for non-suit. But this was an action against the administrator of the sheriff, for an escape. The negligence of the sheriff is the gist of the action. It was not necessary that the allegation of the ca. sa. in the declaration should…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Cunningham v. KimballMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1810