Case ID: scl_17/html/0097-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Johnson, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hugh Hilburn v. John Paysinger.
    Columbia,
    May, 1828.
    In summary process against the indorser of a promissory note, a formal averment of demand on, and refusal by the maker, and notice thereof to the defendant as indorser, is unnecessary. If the process state that the defendant is indebted as indorser,” it is sufficient.
    Motion to set aside the nonsuit ordered by Mr. Justice Richardson, at Newbeny, Spring Term, 1828.
   Johnson, J.

The object of creating the summary jurisdiction was to avoid the expense and delay incident to formal and technical pleading; and hence in that jurisdiction the plaintiff has always been permitted to state his case in the most concise manner. The form adopted im the present instance I found in use five and twenty years ago, and it is in conformity with the practice in other cases within the summary jurisdiction. I have neither seen nor heard of any evils growing out of that practice; and I know of no reason why it should be now remodelled. The motion to set aside the nonsuit is granted.

Nott, J. and Colcock, J. concurred.