Case Name: Addison F. Posey vs. Franklin Branch
Court: South Carolina Court of Errors
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1842-05
Citations: 2 McMul. 338
Docket Number: 
Parties: Addison F. Posey vs. Franklin Branch.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 27
Pages: 338–339

Head Matter:
Addison F. Posey vs. Franklin Branch.
Where a writ was tested on the 4th day of March, 1842, and made returnable to the 3d Monday in March next, it .was held that the 3d Monday in March might well indicate the 3d Monday after the test of the 4th of March, 1842, or the 3d Monday next after the 4th of March,
Before Richardson, J., Abbeville, Spring Term, 1842.
This was a motion made to quash a writ or process as a nullity, under the following circumstances. The writ was tested on the fourth day of March, 1842, and made returnable to the third Monday in March next. The motion was refused by his Honor the presiding judge, who ruled in the case as follows: “ that “ the third Monday in March” might well indicate the third Monday after the test of the fourth of March, 1842, (the first Monday being the seventh of the same month,) thus rejecting the word "next,” or appling it thus, “ the third Monday” next after the fourth of March.
This construction would support the process, ut res ma~ gis valeat quam perat; which ought to be the judicial aim to carry out the evident intention, to render the return legal.
The case of Adams and Scott, 12 Wendell, p. 218, was in point. There, the test being the seventh July, returnable the eighth of July “next,” it was construed to mean, not the eighth of July next, but the eighth of July next after the test of the seventh of July instant^
From this decision the defendant appealed, and renewed his motion in the Appeal Court, to quash the writ, on the ground of error in the presiding Judge.
Wilson, for the motion,
cited 3 Chitty -Gen. Pr. 35; 3 Wils. Rep. 341, 344 ; 2 H. Blackstone, 845; 2 Brev. Dig. 168. 12 Wend., as referred to by the court, Mr. Wilson contended was no authority for this court; cited 2 Johns. Rep. 190, Burn vs. Thomas & King; Calhoun vs. Reynolds, 1 McMullán, 304 ; Harp'er vs. Scuddy, ib. 265.
Percival, contra.

Opinion:
Per curiam.
The court concurs in the construction put by the presiding Judge, and the motion is therefore dismissed.