Dulany & Co. v. Elford & Dargan

Citations

• 22 S.C. 304
• 1885 S.C. LEXIS 23

Syllabus

<p>1. Emir days’ notice should be given of a motion requiring security for costs, but where granted without notice and complied with, no delay being occasioned, there is no ground for a new trial. Doubted, whether an order requiring security for costs is appealable, unless it results in a termination of the action by non-suit.</p> <p>2. There being some evidence tending to show that defendant was a member of a debtor partnership, the Circuit judge erred in granting a non-suit as to such defendant.</p> <p>3. What constitutes a partnership is a question of law, and should be charged by the judge to the jury, leaving it for the jury to say whether there is sufficient evidence to establish the facts so charged by the judge to be necessary to the existence of a partnership.</p> <p>4. Where all of the partners are served, there is no law which authorizes a verdict to be rendered against the effects of a firm. In such case, section 157 of the code does not apply.</p> <p>5. A question not presented to the Circuit judge, nor decided by him, cannot properly be brought before this court for consideration.</p> <p>6. In ordinary action against a partnership, the question of the liability of one of the defendants for an amount of money withdrawn from the firm, not being raised by the pleadings, cannot be considered.</p>