Case Name: Samuel H. Fiske ads. Peter Gerard
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1822-01
Citations: 2 McCord 11
Docket Number: 
Parties: Samuel H. Fiske ads. Peter Gerard.
Judges: Justices Nott, Bay, Richardson, Gantt and Johnson, concurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 13
Pages: 11–12

Head Matter:
Samuel H. Fiske ads. Peter Gerard.
•To induce a belief that a receipt was endorsed upon a note to reduce the balance within the summary process jurisdiction, it must be 6» proved, and will not be presumed.
IN the city court, July Term, 1821. — This process was brought for the recovery of an account, amounting to $ 33 au'^ for $ 15 50, the balance on a note, making together $'tS 50. The note was originally given for $ 65 50, with interest from-1817, a receipt for $ 50 was indorsed upon it by the plaintiff on the 2d of April, 1819. The defendant’s counsel contended that this case was not within the jurisdiction of the court, because the receipt by the plaintiff being his own act, if admitted, it would establish the principle that a party could create a jurisdiction for himself. The objection was overruled, because it was not proved, or from any circumstance was it to be implied, that the receipt was colorable, merely for the purpose of giving jurisdiction. A decree was given for the plaintiff for #48 50, with interest on #15 50, from the 2d of April, 1819. Notice was served upon me that a motion would be made to set aside the decree upon the ground which is included. Wm. Drayton, Recorder.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Colcock
delivei'ed the opinion of the court:
The case of the executor of Taylor vs. Rodrick McDonald, (2 Con. Rep. 178,) relied on in support of this application was decided on a state of facts directly opposite to those reported by the Recorder in this case. — - There it appeared that "the Testator himself had given credit for a payment which the defendant knew nothing of," to take his claim out of the operation of the statute of limitations. There is nothing in the case which says that receipts are to be presumed colorable. 'The contrary presumption is the correct one.
The motion is dismissed.
Justices Nott, Bay, Richardson, Gantt and Johnson, concurred.