Case Name: David Hopkins against The Administrators of M'Pherson
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1798
Citations: 2 Bay 194
Docket Number: 
Parties: David Hopkins against The Administrators of M‘Pherson.
Judges: Present~ BuRKE~ Gi~mui~ ~
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 194–195

Head Matter:
David Hopkins against The Administrators of M‘Pherson.
Columbia,
1798.
one adimms-trator where several are -appointee! and qualified to fteintosSie’s and void, and ■ront the ^statute of limitations from running against a debt. A second writ tl?elnadminis-a^discontUm-first6 will not oure the de-feet where the statute has run before the lodging of the writ in the sheriffs office.
THIS was an action of assumpsit. Plea non assumpsit infra quatuor annos. J 2
Verdict for defendants under the direction of the court.

Opinion:
Motion for a new trial, on the ground of misdirection, The circumstances of this case, as reported, were these t writ was flrst taken out against one of the administrators alone, when several had been appointed and qualified ; the 7 . . plaintiff upon discovering his mistake, discontinued his ac-1 r . . . tion and commenced another one against all the admxnis-trators ; the first writ was in time to bar the statute of limitations, but the second was lodged after the statute had run oui against the debt; so that the only question was, whe-the lodging of the first writ had taken the case out of ° ° the statute or not? The court was unanimous, that the first . , being void, it gave no right whatever to the plaintiff ; and when the second writ (which w~s valid) issued9 the statute of limitations had run out and barred the recovery.
Rule for new trial dischargecL
Present~ BuRKE~ Gi~mui~ ~