Case Name: The Adm'ors of Hynman vs. William Washington
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1823-05
Citations: 2 McCord 493
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Adm’ors of Hynman vs. William Washington.
Judges: Justices Notl, Johnson and Colcock, concurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 13
Pages: 493–494

Head Matter:
The Adm’ors of Hynman vs. William Washington.
On a rale against an attorney for not paying over money to his client, it will be diseharg'ed, if it appeal* that ex ¿equo et bono> he is not enti-tied to it.
IN this case, a rule had been served on the attorney of the plaintiffs to show cause why he did not pay over to' the plaintiffs the money which had been collected on the judgment obtained. He showed for cause that Mr. Guignard directed him to commence an action of debt on a judgment, then unsatisfied, against the said Hynman, who, on being so informed, requested the attorney to put in suit a bond executed by Washington, and payable to the said Hynman, and out of the money to be made in such suit, to pay Mr. Guignard. The attorney having procured a written order to this effect, proceeded against Washington, obtained judgment and received the amount th.efeof, and paid over to Guignard the amount of his judgment, with interest. The plaintiff did not deny having given such order, but contended that Gu.ignardvt.zs not entitled to more than the amount of his judgment, and that interest had been improperly paid. The rule was discharged by the judge, and a motion was now submitted to reverse that order, ' ,

Opinion:
Mr, Justice Huger
delivered the opinion of the court
This was an application to the discretion of the judge j In the exercise of which, he was to be governed by the circumstances of the case. If Hynman was not, ex aequo et bono, entitled to the money, the rule was properly discharged and he left to his action at law for his remedy, if he had any. It is clear that had an action of debt been commenced against Hynman, Guignard would have obtained a judgment for interest as' well as principal. It was to accommodate Hynman that Guignard did not sue.— He ought, therefore, ex aequo et bono, to be placed where he would have been, had he not complied with the proposal of Hynman, The whole arrangement was proposed and made for the indulgence of Hynman, he ought not to complain, having obtained his object, that Guignard is no loser.
The motion is discharged.
Justices Notl, Johnson and Colcock, concurred.
Gantt, Justice, dissented.