Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1805

Montgomery v. Harson

Montgomery v. Harson
Supreme Court of South Carolina · Decided April 15, 1805 · Bay, Brevard, Grimke, Waties
3 S.C.L. 480

Montgomery v. Harson

Dissenting Opinion

Bay, J.

dissented. He was of opinion, that as the costs might have been claimed by the plaintiff, when he received the money in Satisfaction of the debt, and did not, probably from inattention, without any thought that he could not afterwards exact them from the defendant, before the process would be dismissed, he was, there, fore, intitled to a decree for the costs only; the debt being before ■satisfied. ■

Motion dismissed.

Opinion of the Court

Sed per curiam. (Grimke, Waties, and Brevard, Justices.)

Costs follow the judgment; but, as the debt was satisfied before judgment, the plaintiff is not intitled to judgment for the costs alone.The receipt of the money, in full satisfaction of the debt, discharges the defendant, and operates as a release of the action; and, consequently, each party must bear his own expenses of the suit.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.