Isbell v. Dunlap & Ward

Citations

• 17 S.C. 581
• 1882 S.C. LEXIS 103

Syllabus

<p>1. Defendants being sued by plaintiff for his wages as their overseer, paid the amount of this indebtedness to the sheriff to be applied to a junior execution, which had lost its active energy.. Held, that this gave defendants a valid defence to the action, as payment. Oode, § 319.</p> <p>2. An overseer is not an agricultural laborer within the meaning of the act giving laborers a lien on crops, or within the meaning of the Homestead acts.</p> <p>3. The money having been paid by defendants to be applied to a certain execution, the plaintiff cannot object to the application to such execution, although it be junior and without active energy.</p> <p>4. The payment to the sheriff was not a counter-claim, which therefore had to be in existence at the time of action brought, and of which plaintiff was entitled to notice, but was properly pleaded as payment.</p>