Case Name: Hughes v. Phelps
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1802-04
Citations: 1 Brev. 81
Docket Number: 
Parties: Hughes v. Phelps.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 3
Pages: 81–82

Head Matter:
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT,
COLUMBIA,
APRIL, 1802.
Hughes v. Phelps.
A summary process must be sealed as a writ; It is a judicial process, and not a mere rule, or order of court.
The defendant in summary process is not entitled to an imparlance ; nor can either jdaintiff or defendant continue at the first term, otherwise than upon cause shewn. And if the defendant neglects to file his defence on or before the first day of the term to which the process is returnable,lie is a defaulter, and will not be allowed to' set up any defence which requires notice to the plaintiff;

Opinion:
ít was the opinion of the majority of the court in this case, .that a summary process ought to' be sealed as a writ; and that it is a judicial process. Contrary to the opinion of Grimke, J., who' thought a rule, or order of court, would be sufficient to oblige the defendant to appear and answer;
In the same court, and at the same time, sundry cases on summary process, were depending on this question: whether the defendant is not allowed ah imparlance, Or privilege of a continuance of the cause over to the next court, after that to which the process is returnable, as a matter of course, in like manner as in other ac. tions, by capias ad respondendum, &6. Contradictory decisions had taken place in the district courts on this point; but four of the judges, viz. Grimke, Johnson, Ramsay, and Tkezevant, had established a rule in April last, by which the defendant id compelled to make his defence' at the court to which the process is returnable. See A. A. 1769. P. L. 270.-