AWARDS.

1. Upon an agreement to refer matters in dispute to two arbitrators, "with power in case of disagreement to choose an umpre," the arbitrators may select the umpire before they act upon the reference.-Peck vs. Wakely, 2. A award that the plaintiff should give the defendant sufficient indemnity as to certain contracts, and should indemnify him against certain other supposed claims, is not void for uncertainty; but the words were held to mean, from the whole context of the award, the mere personal responsibil ity of the plaintiff, and not a bond, &c.

BAIL.

1. Bail is not discharged in consequence of the plaintiff taking out a fi. fa. previous to the issuing of a ca. sa.- -Ogier vs. Higgins,

2. No special order for bail need be endorsed upon a writ, where the plaintiff' swears to a particular sum due upon the recission of a contract.-Mickle vs. Baker,

3. No person, (unless a transient person,) can be held to bail for a less sum than $30 61 Cheshire vs. Edson,

BASTARD.

16

2. Where a note, made bona fide for valuable consideration, is brought into market, it may, like any other property, be sold for less than its nominal value-Fleming vs. Mulligan, 178 3. A note payable on demand, is not entitled to days of grace; but an action may be immediately brought without any other demand being made.-Harrison vs. Cammer, 246 84. A. and B. gave a joint and several note to C. afterwards, by agreement with A. & C.D. signed his name to the same note, and C. then brought an action against A. B. and D. upon their joint and several note, the court held, that the plaintiff should fail, as his atlegata and probata did not correspond. The note not being a joint contract by D. and A. & C.-Ives vs. Pickett, 271 5. The endorser of a note is discharged, if notice of non-payment by the drawer is not given, or if a demand be not made on the drawer, although the note be drawn in the name of a firm which is dissolved.— Butler vs. Denham, 6. An assignment of a chose in action not negotiable, has always been considered by our court as a letter of attorney to the assignee; the assignee or holder of one that is negotiable may therefore elect to regard himself in that character, or sue in his own name.-Ware vs. Key,

350

37

7. An indorser of a sealed note
is not liable as an indorser, and
where he suffered judgment
to go against him, he was not
allowed to recover the costs so
incurred from the drawer.-
Purks vs. Dukes,

8. An indorser to a note made
payable to bearer is liable as
upon a new bill to the bearer.
Eccles vs. Ballard,
9. Whether there was any arti-
fice used to get the indorse-
ment, or if it was made under
circumstances that would ex-
empt the indorser from liabili-
ty, is for the jury; and the
question of diligence in mak-
ing a demand on the drawer
and notice, in the same man-
ner depend on circumstances,
and must be left to the jury.
10. Notice of non-payment
must be given to one who in-
dorses a note after it becomes
due, as to an indorser of a note
before it becomes due-Stock-
man vs. Riley,
11. If the 3d day of grace hap-
pen on a Sunday, the demand
may be made on the second.-
Furnan vs. Harman,
12. The acceptor of a bill of
exchange, and the maker of a
promissory note are not liable
to an indorser for the costs
which he may have incurred
in consequence of default of
payment by them.-Sawyer
Steel vs. Steel,

CAVEATS.
See Trespass to try Titles.

CHOSE IN ACTION.
1. An assignment of a chose in
action not negotiable, has al-
ways been considered by our
court as a letter of attorney to
the assignee; the assignce or
holder of one that is negotia-
ble, may therefore elect to re-
gard himself in that character,
or suc in his own name-Ware
8. Key,

CHALLENGE.

See Duel.

380

388

398

436

459

373

CITATION.

1. A citation from the ordinary,
giving notice of one's inzen-
tion to apply for administra-
tion, need not be published in
a newspaper; but it is enough
if read by an officiating cler-
gyman in church-Sargent vs.
Fox,
309

CITY ORDINANCE.
1. The evidence to convict a
person under the 13th clause
of an ordinance of the city of
Charleston of 1815, prohibit-
ing retailers of liquors from
selling to persons of color, or
admitting them into their pre-
mises after certain hours, is
sufficient if it be proved that
such persons were seen in
such shop after such hour,
drinking spirits and water;
though no money was seen
paid.-Council vs. Van Ro-

ven,

2. The court held that a feme
covert, sole dealer, was liable
to the penalty under such or-
dinance, though the liquor
was handed to the negro by
her husband, she being pre-
sent, and he acting as her
clerk,

3. The words "admit into his
or her premises any negro or
person of color, or in any man-
ner sell or retail to the same,"
do not mean "admit into his,
&c." and "in any manner,
&c."

COPARTNERS.

1. One copartner cannot autho-
rize an appearance for the oth-
er.-Haslet vs. Street,

2. A business in which two are
engaged, but having no mutu-
al interest in the capital invest-
ed, and no stipulation for mu-
tual loss, is not a copartner-
ship.-Lowry vs. Brooks,

465

310

421

CLERK OF COURT.
1. A clerk of the court is ex-
empt from working on the
roads.-Harrington vs. Com. 400

CONVEYANCES.

1. No excuse can be made for

not recording a conveyance
under the act of 1785, as to
subsequent purchasers; and
the only case in which a prior
conveyance, not recorded, has
been regarded as valid against
a subsequent purchaser, whose
conveyance was duly record-
ed, is where the subsequent
purchaser had received erpli
cit notice of the prior deed.-
Presumptive notice will not
do.-Cabiness vs. Mahon,

COVENANT.

1. The plaintiff agreed to rent
to the defendant Nelson's Fer-
ry, with 200 acres of land for
$800 per annum. After a
particular description of the
land leased, there was a cove-
nant on the part of the lessor
to furnish one half of the labo-
rers necessary to erect a bridge
across a creek near the land-
ing, and to assist in opening a
road for two miles. Upon an
action being brought for the
rent, the court held, that the
covenant to build the bridge
and make the road was not a
precedent covenant; but that
the covenants were independ
ent.-Gourdin vs. Davis,

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
1. It is now well settled, that
the different clauses of the con-
stitution of the United States
are so to be construed as to ef
fect the purposes for which
they were intended. In con-
formity with this rule, it has
been decided, that although
the states retain all powers not
taken away, yet, when a pow-
er is granted to the national
government, the exercise of
which by the states would be
inconsistent with the grant,
that power is constructively
withheld from the states.-
State vs. Billis,

2. The bills of credit, prohibit-
ed to be issued by the states,
by the 10th sec. of the 1st ar-
ticle of the Constitution of the

273

514

12

United States, are promissory
notes or bills, for the payment
of which the faith of the state
only is pledged. They are such
bills as were emitted by Con-
gress and the different states
anterior to the adoption of the
Constitution,

3. Although throughout the re-
solutious of Congress, and the
acts of our Legislature, "pa-
per money" and "bills of cre-
d.t" are used as synonimous,
it no where appears that "le-
gal tender" and bills of cre-
dit" were regarded as such,
4. As a note of "the Bank of
the State of South-Carolina"
is a bill drawn on the credit of
a particular fund, set apart for
that purpose, it is not a bill of
credit, within the meaning of
the Constitution,

Ib.
5. Where parties are left free
to contract or not, and do con-
tract, they are supposed to do
so in reference to the existing
laws in relation to the subject
matter of the contract, and the
law itself becomes a part of
the contract: otherwise if the
act be manifestly repugnant

to the constitution.-Belcher
vs. Commissioners,
6. The act authorizing the tax
collector to issue executions
against persons who shall make
default in returning their taxa-
ble property and paying their
taxes is not unconstitutional.

23

55

I
8. The Constitution confers on
the Legislature a general pow-
er to legislate, with only two
classes of limitations; those

that are directory, and those
that are prohibitory; and
there is nothing in the Consti-
tution that prohibits the Le-
gislature from authorizing the
Judges to appoint special
courts; nor is there any arti-
cle that fixes the times of the
courts, or that regulates the
manner in which they are to
be provided for.-State vs. Al-
len,
9. A city ordinance requiring
the measurement of coals by
an inspector, when sold within
the city, is not repugnant to
the Constitution of the Unit-
ed States, although the inspec-
tor be allowed a fee by the or-
dinance.-Council vs. Rogers, 495

COMMON CARRIER.
1. The court will not feel dis-
posed to lend too ready an ear
to a charge against a man for
embezzling property commit-
ted to his care.-Minott vs.
Elliott,

301

125

COSTS.
See Attachment. Witness. Bills of
Exchange.

1. Where a suit abates by the
death of one of the parties,
each pays his own costs.-
Latta vs. Surginer,
2. After verdict the court will
not interfere because security
for costs had not been entered
in pursuance of an order of
court. The whole object of
security is to save the defend-
ant from harm, and when the
claim of the plaintiff is sub-
stantiated by a verdict of the
jury, it is sufficient to show
that the defendant could not
be injured.—Furnan vs. Har-

man,

3. Where the plaintiff is order-
ed to give security for costs,
being resident out of the state,
it is sufficient to enter such
security on the back of the de-
claration,

430

436

Ib 442

4. There is no authority for the
court's staying proceedings
until the plaintiff put in secu
rity for costs after judgment

1. This court has the power to
direct the commissioners of
the poor to discharge the du-
ties which are imposed on
them by the various acts of
assembly, when they fail to do
so: but whenever a discretion
is given, the court will not in-
terfere, unless it be clearly
shewn that this discretion has
been abused.—Linah vs. Com. 170
2. This court will not by man-
da nus enforce a contract with
the commissioners of the poor;
the parties must be left to
their usual actions at law, Ib 171
3. The commissioners of the
poor are not bound to support
children paupers who have left
the district; for had they re-
mained in the district, they
might have bound them ap
prentices to some trade,

COMMITMENT.
See Magistrate.

DAMAGES.

1. Damages arising ex contrac-

Ib

tu, as for a breach of warranty,
may be recovered before a
magistrate, if the amount be
within his jurisdiction.-Co-
hen vs. Saddler,

2. In an action of trespass vi et
armis, for breaking and enter-
ing the plaintiff's close and
removing his fence, the neces-
sary and unavoidable conse-
quence of which was the loss
of his crop, the court held the
plaintiff might prove the loss
of his crop to enhance dama-
ges.-Harden vs. Kennedy,
3. Upon a failure of a warran-
ty of title to personal proper-
ty, the rule of damages is the
price paid for the property,
with interest from the time of
the purchase.Ware vs.
Weathnal,

4. The same rule of damages,
it seems, applies as well to
real as personal property,

DISCOUNT.

239

277

413

Ib

185

1. Where a party sued in the
City Court of Charleston, ap-
plied for a certiorari to remove
the case to the Circuit Court,
on the ground that he had a
discount to set up, the amount
of which exceeded the City
Court Jurisdiction, the court
refused it on the ground that
the defendant might have his
cross action; and besides, he
was sued in his own right, and
his discount was as exccutor.
Ex Parte Doyley,
2. The court has, at common
law, the power to order mutu-
al judgments to be set off a
gainst each other; but a per-
son should avail himself of the
earliest opportunity to make
such application, and not to
delay before the interest of
third persons have become in-
volved.-Williams vs. Evans, 203
3. Where the plaintiff, under
particular circumstances, took
the defendant with a ca. sa.
the court refused his motion
to set off their mutual judg-

set off mutual judgments at
the same court, during which
they were obtained, the court
granted the motion, notwith-
standing the opposite party
had assigned his judgment to
a third person; the assign-
ment being so promptly made,
excited suspicion that it had
been done to prevent a set off.
Duncan vs. Bloomatock, 318
5. It was also held, that a judg-
ment recovered in an Inferior
court might be set-off against
one of a superior court,
6. A verdict or judgment is not
negotiable; the court will ne-
vertheless respect an assign-
ment of such where it appears
calculated to promote the ends
of justice; but not where it
has a contrary tendency,
7. The assignee of an open ac-
count cannot offer the account
in discount of his own, sued
upon by the plaintiff.-Brown
vs. Thompson,

476

39

54