« PředchozíPokračovat »
THE publication of these volumes was undertaken atthe suggestion of many Gentlemen of the Bar, who had experienced the inconvenience which has been repeatedly noticed by the Court, of consulting the cases in manuscript, in the Constitutional Court. The undertaking was warmly approved by several distinguished Members of the Bench, and to all of them, the publisher is indebted for the kind and incouraging manner in which the communication of his plan was received.
To procure a correct copy of the Decisions, to retrench the cases that appeared not sufficiently interesting or important for publication, and to provide a complete Index of the principal matter and the names of cases, has been all at which the publisher has aimed: How far these objects have been accomplished, it will be for the profession to judge.
Several typographical errors have occurred, which are noticed in the errata, and it is probable that others have escaped attention; he requests in a particular degree the indulgence of the Judges in whose opinions they are met with. He confidently hopes, however, that the sense has in every instance been preserved; and that the errors are seldom of such magnitude as to occasion any embarrasment to the professional reader.
Some idea may be formed of the labour of transcribing, and selecting the Cases for the press; when it is known that at COLUMBIA alone, the manuscript was considered sufficient for three or four volumes; yet it is believed of the mass at COLUMBIA and CHARLESTON not one case of general importance has been omitted iu this publication.
Copies of the Decisions having been made, they were examined and certified by the Clerk of the Court, at Columbia, and in Charleston, by William S. Smith, Esq. to whom the publisher with great pleasure acknowledges his politeness, in affording every facility to the manuscript in his office.
The advice of several distinguished Members of the Bar, has induced the publisher to add the Case of the State vs. Lehre, as also the Cases in the Appendix, from the Court of Equity, which it is presumed will be acceptable to the profession, from the interesting nature of the subject, and importance of the doctrine.
NAMES OF THE CASES REPORTED IN
VOLUME ONE AND TWO.
Allen v Mayson's Executors,
Alston ads. Executors and Trustees of Harvey
Álston v Huggins,
City Council v Pinckney,
City Council v Lee, and others,
Boyd v Brent,
Boykin v Administrators of Watson,
Same v Same,
Boatright and Glaze v Wingate's Administrator,521
Buist v Mitchell,
Brown v Rees,
Brady v Hill,
Crocker and Hitchborn v Radcliffe,
Commissioners of the Poor of Laurens District
v Gaines et al,
Commissioners of the Treasury v Muse,
Chardon v Oliphant, Calder and Company,
Ciples v Administrators of Alexander,
Dodds v Wilson,
Dean v Executors of George and William Leon
Debrull v Parker,
Dickson v Surginer,
Dixon v Haslet,
Darby v Executors of Hunt,