Case Name: Elisha Bennet vs. John McFall
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1816-11
Citations: 2 Tread 769
Docket Number: 
Parties: Elisha Bennet vs v John McFall.
Judges: Justices Grimke, Nott and Johnson concurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 7
Pages: 769–770

Head Matter:
Columbia,
November Term, 1816.
Elisha Bennet vs v John McFall.
Taylor & Harrison, for the Motion.
Bowie, Contra.
No^ action against CHver . costs of a i judgment tfeassign- or’
Summary Process.
John McFall, the defendant, had formerly commenced an action in the name of Moses Holland, against the plaintiff, on the trial of which, judgment was adven for the defendant. The costs were then ° ... taxed, and an execution issued against Moses Hoi-land, the nominal plaintiff, which was returned nulla bona.
This action was then brought against John Mc-Fall, to recover the costs against him. On the trial the assignment of the demand, on. which the .first action was brought, was produced ; by it, Holland assigned to McFall all his right,-and empowered him to sue for, and collect the same to his own use. The presiding Judge decided that the action could not be maintained, and gave a decree for defendant.

Opinion:
Colcock, J.
There can be no principle of law produced in support of this action. The demand was not negotiable in its nature, and the present defendant is to be considered as the agent of Holland, by whose authority he brought .the first action. The principal is answerable for the acts of his agent, but not the agent for those of his principal.
If McFall had not sued the plaintiff, Holland would have done so. No injury9 then, has resulted Bennet, for the acts of McFall alone: and, of course, no responsibility can attach to him. I am, therefore, of opinion that the motion should be rejected.
Justices Grimke, Nott and Johnson concurred.
Gantt, dissented.