Emmons v. Bailey
Court of Appeals of South Carolina
Tried before Mr. Justice Evans, at Lancaster, Spring Term, 1847. Debt on sealed note. The writ in this case, was to “render to the plaintiff one hundred and twenty-six and fourteen cents,” omitting, the word dollars, after six. The declaration set out the amount correctly, one hundred and twenty-six dollars and fourteen cents. To the declaration, the defendant demurred, and set out for causes of demurrer this variance between the writ and declaration.
Read the full summary
Tried before Mr. Justice Evans, at Lancaster, Spring Term, 1847. Debt on sealed note. The writ in this case, was to “render to the plaintiff one hundred and twenty-six and fourteen cents,” omitting, the word dollars, after six. The declaration set out the amount correctly, one hundred and twenty-six dollars and fourteen cents. To the declaration, the defendant demurred, and set out for causes of demurrer this variance between the writ and declaration. A copy of the demurrer is annexed, and forms a part of this report. The presiding Judge thought the amount of the debt demanded should be set…
1Opinion of the Court
Withers J.
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The first question proper to be considered in this case, is, whether it is necessary, or should be regarded as material, that the sum of the debt sued for should be stated in a writ in action of debt. In England, the precipe for a writ in debt specifies the sum of the debt, and so does the capias issued thereon, and this appears from the forms of both given by Wentworth in his work on Practice. And though it is true that the ac eliam clause was introduced by the Statute of 13 Charles 2, statute 2, ch. 2, which had in view the protection of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Carro v. TuckerCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1884