Case Name: Elizabeth Baker v. Williamson Baker, and Samuel Red
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1830-12
Citations: 1 Bail. Eq. 165
Docket Number: 
Parties: Elizabeth Baker v. Williamson Baker, and Samuel Red.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Equity Reports
Volume: 8
Pages: 165–166

Head Matter:
Elizabeth Baker v. Williamson Baker, and Samuel Red.
The 16th section of the act of 1712, authorizing a feme covert to prosecute a suit in her own name, by appointing an attorney, applies only to suits in Courts of law. In equity, she must sue by prochein amy. vide P. L. 103,104.
Before Harper, Chancellor, at Newberry, July, 1830.
The complainant, who was a feme covert, had filed a bill in this Court against her husband, Williamson Baker, and Samuel Red, to restrain them from selling a family of slaves, claimed to be her separate properly. Since the last continuance, her prochein amy bad died ; and the defendants now moved that the complainant be ordered to substitute the name of a responsible person as prochein amy. The motion was resisted, on the ground, that the complainant having constituted an attorney, under her hand and seal, she bad a right under the 16th section of the act of 1712, P. L. 103, 104, to prosecute her suit in her own name.
His Honor, the presiding Chancellor, was of opinion, that the act of 1712 did not dispense with the necessity of a prochein amy. Before that act, a feme covert could not sue at law, at all, without joining her husband; and the principal object of the act was to enable her to do so. She might always have sued alone in equity, but only by a prochein amy, who should be responsible for costs. The provision of the act of 1712, is not inconsistent with the prac. (ice of this Court. The Jeme covert may appoint an attorney to conduct the suit, but there is nothing to forbid such attorney’s being prochein amy. A contrary construction would leave femes covert at liberty to bring all suits they might think proper, without a responsibiliiy for costs any where.
His Honor, therefore, granted the order conformably to the motion.
Dunlap, for the motion.
Higgins, contra.

Opinion:
The complainant now moved to rescind the order, but the motion was refused by the unanimous judgment of the Court.
Appeal dismissed.