Norton v. Wallace
Court of Appeals of South Carolina
Before O’Neall, J. at Beaufort, Fall Term, 1845. This case will be found reported in 1 Rich. 507, to which reference should be made, in order fully to understand the case as now reported. The report of his Honor is as follows: “In this case the defendant was allowed all the benefits of surcharging and falsifying, to the fullest extent that the opinion of the Court of Errors allows. He proposed to shew that the decree in Chancery was obtained by fraud, and therefore void.
Read the full summary
Before O’Neall, J. at Beaufort, Fall Term, 1845. This case will be found reported in 1 Rich. 507, to which reference should be made, in order fully to understand the case as now reported. The report of his Honor is as follows: “In this case the defendant was allowed all the benefits of surcharging and falsifying, to the fullest extent that the opinion of the Court of Errors allows. He proposed to shew that the decree in Chancery was obtained by fraud, and therefore void. Í thought that if it was true, it belonged to chancery, and was the business of that court, to set aside its own decrees.…
1Opinion of the Court
Curia, per O’Neall, J.
In this case, when before the Court of Errors, 1 Rich. 507, it was ruled that the surety, the defendant, should be let into an examination of the decree, for the purpose of “ ascertaining his just and legal liability.” To do this it was held that the decree was only prima facie evidence against him, and might be rebutted by evidence on the part of the surety, to shew that it should not bind him as it did the principal. In the course of the opinion it is said the surety, the defendant, is not privy to that judgment. But that must be understood in a qualified sense; tor if…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Cottom v. CottomCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 1826