Comstock v. Alexander

Citations

• 29 S.C.L. 274

Syllabus

<p>1. Assumpsit brought in the City Court of Charleston — non assumpsit pleaded, and the fact admitted that defendant resides without the City, not within the jurisdiction. Plaintiff non-suited, and the non-suit sustained.</p> <p>2. If a defendant, sued in the superior jurisdiction, relies upon a privilege or residence within an inferior jurisdiction, exempting him from suit in the former, the objection can only be made on half defence and in person, as full defence, or appearance by attorney, would waive the objection. The want of jurisdiction, in such case, is in the nature of an abatement of the writ, and must be strictly pleaded.</p> <p>3. But an inferior jurisdiction must, by the record, shew itself to have jurisdiction, and the general rule is, that the plaintiff must prove his allegations.</p> <p>4. The only exception is, where the plaintiff claims in a particular character, then the defendant’s plea of the general issue admits that.</p> <p>5. The cases of the Planters’ and Mechanics’ Bank vs. Cowing and Wagner, 2 Nott & McCord, 438, and Overstreet vs. Brown, 4 McCord, 79, only allege, that after verdict, the objection comes too late; for in law it is then supposed to have been found that defendant lived in the jurisdiction.</p>