Case Name: James W. Darby, Commissioner in Equity, v. Executors of Thomas Hunt
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1815-11
Citations: 3 Brev. 541
Docket Number: 
Parties: James W. Darby, Commissioner in Equity, v. Executors of Thomas Hunt.
Judges: Grimke, Brevard, Smith, Colcock, and Bay, Js., concurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 5
Pages: 541–543

Head Matter:
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
NOV., 1815.
James W. Darby, Commissioner in Equity, v. Executors of Thomas Hunt.
The condition of a ne exeat bond required defendant to appear at the Court of Common Pleas, to answer to a bill in equity. The bond was held void, and the plaintiff was nonsuited.
Motion to set aside a nonsuit. / Action of debt.
This was an action of debt brought on a bond given to the commissioners in equity, upon a writ of ne exeat, issuing out of the Court of Equity in a suit wherein B. H. Saxon was complainant, and D. J. Puckett, defendant, to restrain the defendant from leaving the State, or departing from the said court, without the leave thereof. The condition of the said bond was a follows : “-The condition of the above obligation is such, that if the above bound D. J. Puckett) do appear at the Court of Common Pleas, to be holden at Union Court House, for Union district, on the fourth Monday in June next, to answer to B. H. Saxon, in a bill of equity now pending in the said court, and not depart without leave thereof, then the above obligation to be void, and of no effect; or else to remain in full force and virtue. Signed, D. J; Puckett, (L. S.) Thomas B. Hunt, (L. S.) John Lusk.” Signed, sealed, and delivered, in the presence of
The defendant pleaded the general issue. On the trial it was proved that Thomas B. Hunt gave the bond, and he acknowledged several times afterwards, that lie had given a bond for one thousand dollars, for Puckett’s appearance at the Court of Equity, in June, 1813, and that he should have it to pay. It was also proved, that the Court of Equity sat the fourth Monday in .June, at Union Court House ; that Puckett did not appear, and that 'soon after he gave the bond, he removed from this State into the western States, and has not since returned. It was proved that Puckett was a lawyer, and that the blanks in the bond were in his handwriting. The decree of the Court of Equity was produced, for seventeen hundred and thirty-seven dollars and eighty-seven cents, in favor of B. H. Saxon against D. J. Puckett, and the writ of ne exeat, with the bill and other papers. The plaintiff then closed his testimony; on which the court ordered a nonsuit,.on the ground, that the condition of the bond was void in law. The plaintiff gives notice, that he will move the Constitutional Court to be holden at Columbia, on the conclusion of the circuit, to set aside the nonsuit, on the following grounds:
1.Because there was sufficient evidence to have been left to the jury-
2. Because the ambiguity of the condition of the bond, was explained by parol testimony.
3. Because the condition of the bond was sufficiently certain to support the action.
4. Because the bond was drawn by one of the obligors,.who was a lawyer, and drawn designedly erroneous, and the defendant could take no advantage of the error.
5. Because fraud, in drawing the bond by the obligor, was alleged and sufficiently proyed; and, under all the circumstances, ought to have been left to a jury.
Gist, for the motion. C res well, contra.

Opinion:
Nott, J.
The court must judge of the validity of this bond, from the instrument itself. If it is not good on the face of it, parol evidence could not make it so, and ought not to have been admitted.. It appears to me so erroneous, both in form and substance, that there can be no doubt about it. It requires the party to appear at the Court of Common Pleas, at Union Court House, at a time when there was no court sitting, to answer to B. H. Saxon in a bill in equity, a subject over which the court had not control, and for a purpose which the process did not require, even in the court of equity. The nonsuit, therefore, was well ordered, and ought not to be set aside.
Grimke, Brevard, Smith, Colcock, and Bay, Js., concurred.