id stringlengths 5 8 | name stringlengths 9 10.6k | name_abbreviation stringlengths 4 160 | decision_date stringlengths 4 10 | docket_number stringlengths 0 169 | first_page stringclasses 829
values | last_page stringclasses 840
values | citations stringlengths 7 25 | volume stringclasses 473
values | reporter stringclasses 7
values | court stringclasses 15
values | jurisdiction stringclasses 1
value | last_updated stringclasses 548
values | provenance stringclasses 3
values | judges stringlengths 0 645 | parties stringlengths 10 10.6k | head_matter stringlengths 14 690k | word_count stringlengths 2 6 | char_count stringlengths 2 6 | text stringlengths 0 200k |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1955590 | DUNCAN v. CLARKE ET AL. | Duncan v. Clarke | 1916-10-09 | 9537 | 17 | 20 | 106 S.C. 17 | 106 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T16:58:35.501316+00:00 | CAP | Mr. Justice Fraser, being disqualified, did not participate in the consideration of this case. | DUNCAN v. CLARKE ET AL. | 9537
DUNCAN v. CLARKE ET AL.
(90 S. E. 180.)
1. Trusts—Construction of Trust Deeds.—In interpreting trust deeds, Courts are not bound by the rigid rules controlling in the construction of law deeds.
2. Trusts—Trust Deed—“Issue.”—Where a trust deed read that E. should hold for the life of her husband, “and at his death ... | 1040 | 5633 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Gage.
The appellant’s counsel declares :
“The precise point involved in this appeal is the construction of the word ‘issue.’ The inquiry is whether the word ‘issue’ as used in the * * * deed embraced only the children of Mr. Henry D. Green, or whether it is broad en... |
1955567 | BYRD ET AL. v. O'NEAL ET AL. | Byrd v. O'Neal | 1917-02-10 | 9601 | 346 | 351 | 106 S.C. 346 | 106 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T16:58:35.501316+00:00 | CAP | BYRD ET AL. v. O’NEAL ET AL. | 9601
BYRD ET AL. v. O’NEAL ET AL.
(91 S. E. 293.)
1. Reformation of Instruments—Mistake—Sufficiency of Evidence. —In an action by heirs of a grantee against the heirs of a grantor to reform a deed to conform to the intention of the parties, evidence held to show proof of a mutual mistake in omitting the word “heirs” in... | 1795 | 9543 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Fraser.
In 1859, Evander Byrd, Jr., married a daughter of Griffin O’Nails. Mr. Byrd and his wife lived for a time with Mr. O’Nails. In 1860, Mr. O’Nails bought a tract of land near him and sold a part to his son-in-law, Byrd. -Byrd moved on the land, built .houses, ... | |
1955573 | STATE v. GRIFFIN | State v. Griffin | 1917-02-08 | 9581 | 283 | 286 | 106 S.C. 283 | 106 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T16:58:35.501316+00:00 | CAP | STATE v. GRIFFIN. | 9581
STATE v. GRIFFIN.
(91 S. E. 318.)
1. Seduction—Corroe oration of Female—-“Corroborate.”—In a prosecution for seduction under promise to marry, testimony of mother, in regard to statements by defendant before and after event to the effect, that he would marry girl, held sufficient to corroborate testimony of girl u... | 1045 | 6050 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr.’ Justice Gage.
The defendant, a young negro boy of 19 years, was convicted of seducing a negro girl of 16 years, by means of deception and promise of marriage. Let the statute which creates the offense be reported.
■ There are two exceptions, to wit: (1) That there was no t... | |
1955575 | STATE v. STEVENS | State v. Stevens | 1917-02-08 | 9576 | 272 | 275 | 106 S.C. 272 | 106 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T16:58:35.501316+00:00 | CAP | STATE v. STEVENS. | 9576
STATE v. STEVENS.
(91 S. E. 302.)
1. Criminal Law-—-Instructions—Cure op Error by Other Instructions.—In a prosecution for murder, error in the charge that, to have a right to kill in self-defense, defendant must find himself in a condition of circumstances without such fault on his part as induces him to believe ... | 940 | 5491 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Fraser.
The appellant was convicted of murder, and appeals.
There are seven exceptions, but only three questions argued.
1. “It was error to- charge the jury as follows: ‘In order to have a right to kill in self-defense the defendant must find himself in a condition... | |
1955593 | NORWOOD NAT. BANK v. PIEDMONT PUB. CO. ET AL. | Norwood Nat. Bank v. Piedmont Pub. Co. | 1917-02-28 | 9590 | 472 | 478 | 106 S.C. 472 | 106 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T16:58:35.501316+00:00 | CAP | Mr. Justice Gage concurs in result. | NORWOOD NAT. BANK v. PIEDMONT PUB. CO. ET AL. | 9590
NORWOOD NAT. BANK v. PIEDMONT PUB. CO. ET AL.
(91 S. E. 966).
1. Bills and Notes'—'Indorsement Before Delivery — Liability.— Under Negotiable Instruments Act 1914 (28 St. at Large, p. 678), secs. 63, 64, a third person placing his name on the back of a note before delivery is liable as indorser.
2. Bills and Notes... | 2240 | 12131 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Watts.
This was an action by plaintiff against the defendants on a promissory note. After issue joined the cause was tried before Judge Mauldin, and a jury, at the Summer term of Court for Greenville county, 1916. At the trial it was announced that the defendant, Le... |
1955557 | PATRICK v. ENGLISH | Patrick v. English | 1917-02-08 | 9574 | 267 | 270 | 106 S.C. 267 | 106 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T16:58:35.501316+00:00 | CAP | PATRICK v. ENGLISH. | 9574
PATRICK v. ENGLISH.
(91 S. E. 295.)
1. Witnesses—Competency—Transactions With Decedent—Statute. —Under Code Civ. Proc., sec. 438, limiting the right of a living party to testify about a transaction between himself and another, since deceased, plaintiff, in an action on a note, was incompetent to testify that an in... | 962 | 5246 | . The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Gage;.
This action is upon a note alleged to have been made to Patrick by Mrs. Fanny C. Wallace, and alleged to have been indorsed by Mobley before it came into the hands of Patrick. Mrs. Wallace is now dead, and so is Mobley, who was her son. But Mobley was sued before his d... | |
1955623 | SKUDOWITZ v. BASHA ET AL. | Skudowitz v. Basha | 1917-03-22 | 9650 | 541 | 544 | 106 S.C. 541 | 106 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T16:58:35.501316+00:00 | CAP | SKUDOWITZ v. BASHA ET AL. | 9650
SKUDOWITZ v. BASHA ET AL.
(91 S. E. 868.)
1. Sales—-Actions for Price—Evidence.—In an action on open account for the price of ladies’ dresses sold and delivered, defendants’ evidence that the goods were defective in material and workmanship was admissible under the general denial to disprove plaintiff’s allegation... | 1039 | 6076 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Hydricic.
This is an action on open account for goods (ladies’ dresses) sold and delivered to defendants. Plaintiff alleged that the goods were reasonably worth $290.00, and that defendants were indebted to him in that amount for them. The answer was a general denia... | |
1955526 | IN RE COLEMAN ET AL. IN RE WALLACE ET AL. | In re Coleman | 1917-03-22 | 9649 | 534 | 541 | 106 S.C. 534 | 106 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T16:58:35.501316+00:00 | CAP | IN RE COLEMAN ET AL. IN RE WALLACE ET AL. | 9649
IN RE COLEMAN ET AL. IN RE WALLACE ET AL.
(91 S. E. 861.)
1. Executors and Administrators — Employment op Attorneys. — Executors having already employed a large force of legal talent may not, without necessity being shown, employ more attorneys and make their compensation a charge on the estate.
2. Executors and A... | 2547 | 14344 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Watts.
Miss Ann E. Rice died, leaving her last will and testament, to which she had added a codicil. She left as executors thereof William Coleman and F. M. Farr. When an application was made by them for a final settlement and discharge, Wallace and Barron and Mower... | |
1955554 | HARMAN v. SOUTHERN RY. CO. | Harman v. Southern Ry. Co. | 1916-12-23 | 9562 | 209 | 211 | 106 S.C. 209 | 106 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T16:58:35.501316+00:00 | CAP | HARMAN v. SOUTHERN RY. CO. | 9562
HARMAN v. SOUTHERN RY. CO.
(90 S. E. 1023.)
1. Carriers—Live Stock—Negligence—Punitive Damages—Carmack Amendment.—Under the Carmack Amendment (Act June 29, 1906, c. 3591,-sec. 7, pars. 11, 12, 34 Stat. 593) to the Interstate Commerce Act (Act Feb. 4, 1887, c. 104„sec. 20, pars. 11, 12, 24 Stat. 386 [U. S. Comp. St... | 642 | 3724 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. ChiEE Justice Gary.
This is an action for actual and punitive damages, alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff, through the wrongful acts of the defendant, in causing injury to a carload of horses and mules shipped from Paris, Ky., to Lexington, ¡3. C., on the 10th ... | |
1955521 | BAGNAL v. SOUTHERN EXPRESS CO. | Bagnal v. Southern Express Co. | 1917-02-10 | 9614 | 395 | 401 | 106 S.C. 395 | 106 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T16:58:35.501316+00:00 | CAP | BAGNAL v. SOUTHERN EXPRESS CO. | 9614
BAGNAL v. SOUTHERN EXPRESS CO.
(91 S. E. 334)
.Appeal and Error—Review—Presumption-—Appeal from Intermediate Court.—In view of Code Civ. Proc., sec. 407, relative to appeals to Circuit Court, which provides that upon hearing the appeal the Court shall give judgment according to the justice of the case, without reg... | 1990 | 11308 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. ChiEE Justice Gary.
This action was commenced in a magistrate’s Court to recover the sum of $1, the alleged value of a box of peaches, shipped from a station in Clarendon county to the plaintiff at Sumter, S. C., and for the penalty of $50, for failure to pay the claim with... | |
1955612 | PARHAM-THOMAS-McSWAIN, INC., v. ATLANTIC LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY | Parham-Thomas-McSwain, Inc. v. Atlantic Life Insurance | 1916-12-23 | 9563 | 211 | 214 | 106 S.C. 211 | 106 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T16:58:35.501316+00:00 | CAP | PARHAM-THOMAS-McSWAIN, INC., v. ATLANTIC LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY. | 9563
PARHAM-THOMAS-McSWAIN, INC., v. ATLANTIC LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.
(90 S. E. 1022.)
1. Appeal and Error—Appealable Orders—Refusing Nonsuit.—An order refusing a nonsuit or directing a verdict is not appealable until after final judgment, and no appeal will lie from such order where the jury disagreed.
2. Appeal and E... | 1230 | 6376 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Chief Justice Gary.
This is an appeal from an order setting aside a directed verdict, on the counterclaim interposed by the defendant; also, from the order refusing the defendant’s motion for the direction of a verdict, as to the plaintiff’s cause of action; The jury failed... | |
1955543 | STATE v. WILEY | State v. Wiley | 1917-02-17 | 9628 | 437 | 441 | 106 S.C. 437 | 106 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T16:58:35.501316+00:00 | CAP | STATE v. WILEY. | 9628
STATE v. WILEY.
(91 S. E. 382.)
1. Criminal Law—Appeal—Harmless Error—Instructions.—Where counsel for accused admitted that he failed to detect the errors in the Court’s charge when it was read, but only discovered them after carefully examining the written charge furnished by the stenographer, the errors were har... | 1286 | 7563 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. JusticU Watts.
The defendant, George Wiley, was tried for murder at the February term of Court, 1915, before Judge Smith and a jury, and found guilty of manslaughter and sentenced to serve a sentence of eight years at hard labor. Later a motion for a new trial was made befo... | |
1955601 | TUTEN ET AL. v. McALHANEY ET AL. | Tuten v. McAlhaney | 1917-02-09 | 9597 | 328 | 337 | 106 S.C. 328 | 106 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T16:58:35.501316+00:00 | CAP | TUTEN ET AL. v. McALHANEY ET AL. | 9597
TUTEN ET AL. v. McALHANEY ET AL.
(91 S. E. 328.)
1. Deeds—Execution—Undue Influence—Burden of Proof.—Where the condition of a grantor is such that the borderland between his weak-mindedness and his imbecility is a mere shadow, and a conveyance of valuable property is made by such grantor to a stranger in blood wit... | 3096 | 17125 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Fraser.
“This is an action brought by the heirs at law of William M. Tuten, deceased, to set aside a deed made by him to H. F. McAlhaney on August 14, 191.4, on the grounds of incapacity of the grantor, fraud and misrepresentation on the part of the grantee and want... | |
1955622 | STATE v. HAMPTON | State v. Hampton | 1917-02-08 | 9577 | 275 | 278 | 106 S.C. 275 | 106 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T16:58:35.501316+00:00 | CAP | STATE v. HAMPTON. | 9577
STATE v. HAMPTON.
(91 S. E. 315.)
1. Intoxicating Liuuors— Sale — Natural Right.—In view of the statutory declaration that all alcoholic liquors are detrimental and their use against the morals, good health, and safety of the State, no man has a natural right to sell intoxicating liquors, and it is not error for t... | 1179 | 6389 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Fraser.
The appellant was charged with the sale of liquor, keeping a place where liquor was sold, keeping a place where people were allowed to resort for the purpose of drinking liquor, storing liquor and transporting liquor. He was tried and convicted. The verdict ... | |
1955604 | GLOVER v. HEYWARD | Glover v. Heyward | 1917-02-10 | 9604 | 360 | 361 | 106 S.C. 360 | 106 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T16:58:35.501316+00:00 | CAP | GLOVER v. HEYWARD. | 9604
GLOVER v. HEYWARD.
(91 S. E. 316.)
Appeal and Error—Orders Appealabie—Discretion of Trial Court— Statute.—Under Code Civ. Proc. 1902, sec. 368, providing that if defendant fails, to appear before the magistrate, and if it is shown by the affidavits served by appellant, or otherwise, that manifest injustice has bee... | 630 | 3527 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Fraser.
This was a proceeding in a magistrate’s Court, to foreclose a mechanic’s lien. Judgment was given against appellant by default. From'this judgment appellant appealed to the Circuit Court. The case was heard by his Honor, Judge Mendel L. Smith, who made the f... | |
1955595 | WHITE ET AL. v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. | White v. Atlantic Coast Line R. | 1917-02-09 | 9598 | 337 | 339 | 106 S.C. 337 | 106 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T16:58:35.501316+00:00 | CAP | WHITE ET AL. v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. | 9598
WHITE ET AL. v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO.
(91 S. E. 323.)
Railroads—Injuries at Crossing—Jury Case.—In an action against a railroad for killing two horses and injuring a buggy and a gun in a crossing collision, case held for the jury under the evidence.
Before Memminger, J., Monck’s Corner, March, 1916.
Affirmed.... | 606 | 3318 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Gage.
Tort, for the negligent injury to personal property. Defense, the injury resulted from the plaintiffs’ contributory negligence. The thing hurt was a buggy and two horses attached; the horses were killed, and the buggy and a gun were demolished. The instrumenta... | |
1955541 | CONTINENTAL INS. CO. ET AL. v. SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. | Continental Ins. v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. | 1916-09-05 | 9497 | 43 | 45 | 106 S.C. 43 | 106 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T16:58:35.501316+00:00 | CAP | CONTINENTAL INS. CO. ET AL. v. SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. | 9497
CONTINENTAL INS. CO. ET AL. v. SEABOARD AIR LINE RY.
(90 S. E. 318.)
• Judgment—Conclusiveness—Persons Concluded.—A judgment in an action by a property owner, in which some of the companies insuring the property were out of the case by nonsuit and one out by the unlawful omission of the jury at the time the verdic... | 506 | 2809 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Gage.
This trial is a sequel to that reported in 102 S. C. 348, 86 S. E. 678. We are of the opinion that the Circuit Court ought to have heard testimony upon the issue of what caused the fire. It is true that, as betwixt the Farmers Mercantile Company and the railro... | |
1955569 | HOLDER v. MELVIN ET AL. | Holder v. Melvin | 1917-01-06 | 9572 | 245 | 255 | 106 S.C. 245 | 106 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T16:58:35.501316+00:00 | CAP | HOLDER v. MELVIN ET AL. | 9572
HOLDER v. MELVIN ET AL.
(91 S. E. 97.)
1. Trusts — Deeds — Construction — Rule.—The legal interest of the trustee in an estate given to him in trust is measured, not by words of inheritance in the deed or will, but by the object and extent of the trust upon which the estate is given, whether it be greater or less ... | 3732 | 19960 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Chief Justice Gary.
This is an action for specific performance, and involves the construction of a deed dated the 4th oí May, 1871, the provisions of which are as follows:
“Know all men by these presents that I, William H. Mays, * '* * for and in consideration of the sum of... | |
1955551 | STATE v. PERRY ET AL. | State v. Perry | 1917-02-08 | 9583 | 289 | 292 | 106 S.C. 289 | 106 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T16:58:35.501316+00:00 | CAP | Mr. Chiee Justice Gary and Messrs. Justices Fraser and Gage concur in the opinion of the Court. Mr. Justice Hydrick did not participate in the consideration of this case. | STATE v. PERRY ET AL. | 9583
STATE v. PERRY ET AL.
(91 S. E. 300.)
1. Criminal I,aw—Admissions or Confessions—Testimony at Coroner's Inquest.—'Testimony of one when examined before a coroner’s jury cannot be used against him on a subsequent prosecution for the homicide, as this would be to require him to furnish testimony against himself; any... | 858 | 5023 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Watts.
The defendant was indicted and convicted of murder with a recommendation to mercy before his Honor, Judge Mauldin, and a jury, at the November term of Court, 1915. After sentence, the defendant appeals, and by 18 exceptions imputes error on the part of his Ho... |
1955519 | GLADDEN ET AL. v. CHAPMAN ET AL. | Gladden v. Chapman | 1917-03-09 | 9634 | 486 | 495 | 106 S.C. 486 | 106 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T16:58:35.501316+00:00 | CAP | Mr. Justice Watts did not participate in the consideration of this case. | GLADDEN ET AL. v. CHAPMAN ET AL. | 9634
GLADDEN ET AL. v. CHAPMAN ET AL.
(91 S. E. 796.)
1. Judgment—Coixatebal Attack-—-Statute.—In view of Code Civ. Proc. 1912, sec. 185, as to purchasers in good faith under judgments, judgment in a partition suit, and sale made thereunder, must be sustained against collateral attack in am action to recover possession... | 3244 | 18325 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr, Justice Hydrick.
This is an action to' recover possession of a tract of land, which plaintiffs claim as heirs of James H. Kessiah. Defendants claim as purchasers under a judgment of the Circuit Court under which the land was sold for partition amongst the heirs of James H. ... |
1955524 | BANK OF WILLISTON v. ALDERMAN ET AL. | Bank of Williston v. Alderman | 1917-02-10 | 9612 | 386 | 392 | 106 S.C. 386 | 106 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T16:58:35.501316+00:00 | CAP | BANK OF WILLISTON v. ALDERMAN ET AL. | 9612
BANK OF WILLISTON v. ALDERMAN ET AL.
(91 S. E. 296.)
1. Jury—Right to Trial by Jury—Action for Recovery of Money Only.—Where plaintiff bank mistook certifi.cate number of a $15 draft for the amount and paid defendant $528.20, and, upon his refusal to surrender surplus, brought suit, alleging mistake and fraud and ... | 2034 | 11464 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. ChiER Justice Gary.
This is an appeal from an order of reference, on the ground that the appellant was entitled to a trial by jury.
The second paragraph of the complaint is as follows:
“That on the 24th day of July, 1915, the defendant, Owen Alderman, presented to the plain... | |
1955548 | COOK ET AL. v. KNIGHT ET AL. | Cook v. Knight | 1917-02-08 | 9591 | 310 | 315 | 106 S.C. 310 | 106 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T16:58:35.501316+00:00 | CAP | COOK ET AL. v. KNIGHT ET AL. | 9591
COOK ET AL. v. KNIGHT ET AL.
(91 S. E. 312.)
1. -Reformation of Instruments—Complaint—Sufficiency.—A complaint by grantees filed in 1915, praying the reformation of a deed on the ground of mistake, which alleged that the deed was executed ■ in 1872, and that the grantor died in 1901, states a cause of action, thou... | 1649 | 9323 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Watts.
This is an action for the reformation of a deed. The complaint alleges that the deed was executed in 1872-, that the grantor died in 1901, and the suit was commenced in 1915. There is tio allegation as to the time when the mistake was discovered nor excuse fo... | |
1955571 | CHARLESTON & W. C. RY. CO. v. GOSNELL ET AL. | Charleston & W. C. Ry. Co. v. Gosnell | 1916-10-14 | 9543 | 84 | 102 | 106 S.C. 84 | 106 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T16:58:35.501316+00:00 | CAP | Mr. Justice Gage and Circuit Judges Moore, Sease, Rice, Bowman, Gary, Wilson, Peurieoy and Smith concur in the opinion announced by the ChiEE Justice. | CHARLESTON & W. C. RY. CO. v. GOSNELL ET AL. | 9543
CHARLESTON & W. C. RY. CO. v. GOSNELL ET AL.
(90 S. E. 264.)
1. Commerce—Intoxicating LiauoRS—Interstate Commerce.—Interstate shipments of intoxicating liquor consigned to the shipper with order to notify were intended by the party to be notified for unlawful use. The shipments were held by the carrier for some ti... | 5944 | 34865 | The Circuit Judge having been called to the aid of the Court:
The opinion of the Court en banc was delivered by
Mr. Chile Justice Gary.
There are numerous exceptions, but it will not be necessary to consider them in detail, as the appellant’s attorneys state that the main question raised by them may thus be formulated:... |
1955555 | WRIGHT v. SEALE | Wright v. Seale | 1916-11-29 | 9559 | 261 | 267 | 106 S.C. 261 | 106 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T16:58:35.501316+00:00 | CAP | WRIGHT v. SEALE. | 9559
WRIGHT v. SEALE.
(91 S. E. 291.)
1. Deeds—Acreage Conveyed—Sufficiency of Evidence.—In an action to foreclose a purchase-money mortgage on a parcel of land alleged to contain a certain number of acres, evidence held insufficient to establish defendant’s contention that the parcel did not' contain such number of ac... | 1953 | 10394 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Gage.
Action to foreclose a purchase-money mortgage on a parcel of land alleged in the complaint to contain 31.9 acres. Answer that the parcel did not contain so many acres, but only 22.53 acres, and that the mortgage debt ought therefore to be abated by so much at ... | |
368984 | DAVIS v. CHILDERS | Davis v. Childers | 1895-09-17 | 133 | 146 | 45 S.C. 133 | 45 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:25:09.283405+00:00 | CAP | DAVIS v. CHILDERS. | DAVIS v. CHILDERS.
1. Equitable Chattel Mortgage. — An agreement founded on valuable consideration, to give a mortgage on a chattel, constitutes an equitable mortgage.
2. Ibid. — An equitable mortgage on a chattel may be created by parol, and such agreement to give a mortgage need not be in writing.
3. Chattel Mortgage... | 4772 | 26575 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Gary.
This action was commenced in January, 1894, by the plaintiff against the defendants, to recover possession of a buggy, set of harness, and one horse, of the alleged values, respectively, of $60, $6, and $150; also to recover $5,000 damages for the alleged wron... | ||
368926 | GIBBES v. McCRAW | Gibbes v. McCraw | 1895-09-19 | 184 | 186 | 45 S.C. 184 | 45 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:25:09.283405+00:00 | CAP | GIBBES v. McCRAW. | GIBBES v. McCRAW.
1. Evidbncb. — A party cannot give oral evidence of an indebtedness set out in a written contract present in court, which alone gives him any knowledge thereof.
2. Ibid. — Compromise.—A letter offering to compromise a difference between parties was properly excluded on the trial.
Before Aedrich, J., S... | 776 | 4384 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Pope.
Plaintiffs sued defendant to recover $188.75, for goods sold and delivered, to be paid for on 1st November, 1891, alleging that the elevator included in the account for $185 was purchased by plaintiffs from the makers of the same for the defendant on his order... | ||
368957 | CAROLINA SAVINGS BANK v. FLORENCE TOBACCO CO. | Carolina Savings Bank v. Florence Tobacco Co. | 1895-10-15 | 373 | 380 | 45 S.C. 373 | 45 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:25:09.283405+00:00 | CAP | CAROLINA SAVINGS BANK v. FLORENCE TOBACCO CO. | CAROLINA SAVINGS BANK v. FLORENCE TOBACCO CO.
Bills and Notes — Nonsuit—Makers—Endorsers.—The testimony in this case shows that the plaintiff treated and understood the parties, whose names were written on the back of the note as endorsers, and, as such, they are entitled to all the requirements of the law merchant at ... | 2541 | 14174 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Pope.
This action was commenced in the Court of Common Pleas for Darlington County, in said State, on the 9th day of July, 1894, and came on for trial before his Honor, Judge Norton, and a jury at the October term, 1894, of said Court. After the plaintiff closed its... | ||
368915 | LAMB v. PADGETT | Lamb v. Padgett | 1896-01-14 | 534 | 536 | 45 S.C. 534 | 45 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:25:09.283405+00:00 | CAP | LAMB v. PADGETT. | LAMB v. PADGETT.
1. Appear — Affidavit—Dismissae.—In an application to the clerk of this Court to dismiss an appeal under Rule 1, it is not necessary that the fact appear in the affidavit of respondents’ attorney that the “Return” has not been filed.
2. Appear — Return—Dismissae—Excusabre Negeect. — The “Return” must b... | 710 | 4057 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Chiee Justice McIver.
This is a motion to reinstate an appeal dismissed by the clerk for failure to file the return within the time prescribed by law. The motion seems to be based upon the grounds (1) that the affidavit of respondent’s attorneys, upon which the clerk dismis... | ||
368893 | MARSHALL, WESCOAT & CO. v. CRAWFORD | Marshall, Wescoat & Co. v. Crawford | 1895-09-19 | 189 | 216 | 45 S.C. 189 | 45 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:25:09.283405+00:00 | CAP | MARSHALL, WESCOAT & CO. v. CRAWFORD. | MARSHALL, WESCOAT & CO. v. CRAWFORD.
1. Chatted Mortgage — Fraud—Evidence.—A stipulation in a chattel mortgage, that the mortgagor should retain possession of the stock of goods, and sell the same in his business as merchant until the said debt is paid or this mortgage is foreclosed, all goods bought to take place of g... | 10212 | 57849 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Pope.
The plaintiffs began this action on the 19th day of April, 1894, in the Court of Common Pleas for York County, in this State, against the defendant, who is sheriff of that county, for claim and delivery of certain personal property, consisting of goods, wares,... | ||
369001 | VanDIVIERE v. MITCHELL | VanDiviere v. Mitchell | 1895-09-17 | 127 | 132 | 45 S.C. 127 | 45 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:25:09.283405+00:00 | CAP | VanDIVIERE v. MITCHELL. | VanDIVIERE v. MITCHELL.
Constructive Notice — Mortgage.—A mortgage of real estate properly recorded is constructive notice, under section 1968 of Revised Statutes, for all purposes, to subsequent purchasers and encumbrancers, even when the deed for the mortgaged premises to the mortgagor is not recorded.
Before WATTS, ... | 1905 | 11301 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Gary.
This action was heard by his Honor, Judge Watts, upon an agreed statement of facts, which, together with the appellant’s exceptions, will be incorporated in the report of the case.
The following appears in the decree of his Honor, Judge Watts, in addition to t... | ||
368883 | LITTLEJOHN v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO. | Littlejohn v. Southern Railway Co. | 1895-09-09 | 96 | 102 | 45 S.C. 96 | 45 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:25:09.283405+00:00 | CAP | LITTLEJOHN v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO. | LITTLEJOHN v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO.
1. Service Summons. — The service of a summons and complaint upon a resident station agent of a foreign railroad corporation having property within this State, upon a cause of action arising within this State, is valid, under act of 1887, 19 Stat., p. 835; Civil Code of 1893, sec. 155... | 2020 | 11695 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Chief Justice McIver.
The facts of this case are undisputed, and substantially are as follows:- The plaintiff desiring to commence an action against the defendant company, a foreign corporation, to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained at a po... | ||
368873 | METZ v. COMMERCIAL BANK; COMMERCIAL BANK v. METZ | Metz v. Commercial Bank | 1895-09-25 | 216 | 261 | 45 S.C. 216 | 45 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:25:09.283405+00:00 | CAP | METZ v. COMMERCIAL BANK. COMMERCIAL BANK v. METZ. | METZ v. COMMERCIAL BANK. COMMERCIAL BANK v. METZ.
1. Exception. — An exception to a report of the master, which does not state the matters excepted to, will not be considered.
2. Partnership. — A private banking partnership, by its articles of agreement, was to dissolve on a certain day, but on that day owed large sums... | 16005 | 93451 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Pope.
The contention in above causes involves one of the most curious set of facts among business men that we remember ever to have encountered. Briefly stated, these facts are: that in 1883, Levi Metz, while a citizen of Lexington County, in this State, being a man... | ||
368962 | McINTOSH v. THE CITY OF CHARLESTON | McIntosh v. City of Charleston | 1896-02-21 | 584 | 590 | 45 S.C. 584 | 45 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:25:09.283405+00:00 | CAP | McINTOSH v. THE CITY OF CHARLESTON. | McINTOSH v. THE CITY OF CHARLESTON.
Corporation — Witts—Devise—City oe Charteston. — In this State a corporation may take and hold real estate by devise under the general authority to hold, purchase, receive, alienate, &c., in the absence of legislative restraint, and su’ch authority being conferred on the city of Char... | 2423 | 14074 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Gary.
John Thomson, of the city of Charleston, S. C., died in March, 1893, leaving a last will and testament, wherein he devised and bequeathed certain pieces of real estate, to devisees therein mentioned, certain sums of money to some of his relatives, a certain su... | ||
368987 | HALL v. HALL | Hall v. Hall | 1895-09-09 | 4 | 8 | 45 S.C. 4 | 45 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:25:09.283405+00:00 | CAP | HALL v. HALL. | HALL v. HALL.
1. Appealable Order. — An order of a Circuit Judge refusing to allow a party to tax costs incurred on appeal to the Supreme Court is appealable.
2. Costs on Appeal.' — The prevailing party in the Supreme Court has the right to tax his costs on appeal, which follow the result of the appeal; and the Circuit... | 1351 | 7482 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice; Gary.
The facts in this case are set forth in the order of his Honor, Judge Benet, which will be incorporated in the report of the case. From this order, appellant has appealed to this Court on three exceptions, which will, also, be incorporated in the report of th... | ||
368979 | HOLTZCLAW v. GREEN | Holtzclaw v. Green | 1896-01-03 | 494 | 496 | 45 S.C. 494 | 45 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:25:09.283405+00:00 | CAP | HOLTZCLAW v. GREEN. | HOLTZCLAW v. GREEN.
1. Exceptions — Appeae—Findings oe Fact — Case Foeeowed. — Exceptions which, do not contain findings of fact excepted to will not be considered. Following Jumper v. Bank, 39 S. C., 296.
2. Facts — Appeae—Supreme Court. — This Court cannot review the facts in a law case submitted to a Judge for adjud... | 537 | 3144 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Gary.
This action was' commenced before a trial justice “for $50 on account of manure left by plaintiff on the land where the defendant resides, and which manure he now refuses to let plaintiff have.”
The defendant answered, denying the allegations of the complaint,... | ||
368885 | PRICE v. PRICE | Price v. Price | 1895-09-09 | 57 | 61 | 45 S.C. 57 | 45 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:25:09.283405+00:00 | CAP | PRICE v. PRICE. | PRICE v. PRICE.
T. Findings oe Pact by a master, sustained by the Circuit Judge, will not be disturbed by this Court, unless against the manifest weight of the testimony, or without testimony to support them.
2. Exceptions. — This Court will not consider exceptions to the master’s report, not taken at the proper time a... | 1300 | 7294 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Pope.
This action was commenced on the 20th day of June, 1893, in the Court of Common Pleas for Anderson County, and came on for trial before his Honor, Judge Watts, at the fall, 1894, term of said Court. The decree was filed on the 12th November, 1894. Whereupon th... | ||
368976 | STATE EX REL. BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS OF CITY OF COLUMBIA v. FOLK | State ex rel. Board of School Commissioners v. Folk | 1896-01-03 | 491 | 494 | 45 S.C. 491 | 45 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:25:09.283405+00:00 | CAP | STATE EX REL. BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS OF CITY OF COLUMBIA v. FOLK. | STATE EX REL. BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS OF CITY OF COLUMBIA v. FOLK.
1. Pori, Tax — Schooe Fund — County Treasurer. — Poll tax paid to a trial justice -with penalty after expiration of time within which county treasurer can collect, belongs to school fund of the district where payee resides.
2. Taxes — Tax CORRECTI... | 1090 | 6330 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Chief Justice McIver.
This is an application, addressed to this Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, praying that a writ of mandamus, directed to the said L. B. Folk, as county treasurer of Richland County, may be issued, requiring him to hold certain moneys ... | ||
368891 | HARRELL v. PARROTT | Harrell v. Parrott | 1896-02-29 | 611 | 614 | 45 S.C. 611 | 45 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:25:09.283405+00:00 | CAP | HARRELL v. PARROTT. | HARRELL v. PARROTT.
Usury — Answer—Demurrer.—The allegations of the answer in this case held a sufficient plea of the defense of usury, and it was error to sustain the demurrer to the answer on the ground that the allegations were not a sufficient plea of usury.
Before Townsend, J., Darlington, March,1895.
Reversed.
Ac... | 1070 | 6173 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Gary.
The following statement of facts appears in the “Case:” This action was commenced for the foreclosure of a mortgage executed by the defendant, appellant, to I. M. Harrell, deceased, in which S. D. Harrell, as administrator with the will annexed of the said I. ... | ||
368986 | STATE EX REL. ROSS v. KELLY, ASSESSOR | State ex rel. Ross v. Kelly | 1895-11-25 | 457 | 464 | 45 S.C. 457 | 45 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:25:09.283405+00:00 | CAP | STATE EX REL. ROSS v. KELLY, ASSESSOR. | STATE EX REL. ROSS v. KELLY, ASSESSOR.
Constitution — Charleston—Assessment—Taxation—Mandamus. Under section 33, of art. II., and sections 1, 6, 8, and 9, of art. IX., of Constitution of 1868, the tax officers of the city of Charleston, in the absence of legislation conferring on such city authority to make assessments... | 2330 | 13488 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Gary.
This is an application by the petitioner, Miss Maty Jane Ross, to this Court, in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, for a writ of mandamus, commanding William Aiken Kelly, as assessor, and John Orrin Rea, as treasurer, of the city of Charleston, to cor... | ||
368999 | EX PARTE ALLISON | Ex parte Allison | 1895-10-10 | 338 | 344 | 45 S.C. 338 | 45 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:25:09.283405+00:00 | CAP | EX PARTE ALLISON. | EX PARTE ALLISON.
Homestead — Rev. STaT., 2126, 2130. — A resident sold his house and lot under an executory contract and put purchaser in possession, but before deed was executed or purchase money paid, he executed an assignment for the benefit of his creditors. Before any judgments were obtained against him, he filed... | 2178 | 12079 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Gary.
On the 12th day of July, 1893, an agreement in writing was entered into between W. M. Allison, of the first part, and W. B. DeFoach, of the second part, whereby the party of the first part covenanted to convey to the party of the second part his house and lot ... | ||
368951 | LAWTON v. PERRY | Lawton v. Perry | 1895-10-10 | 319 | 323 | 45 S.C. 319 | 45 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:25:09.283405+00:00 | CAP | LAWTON v. PERRY. | LAWTON v. PERRY.
1. ORDER — RES Adjudicaba — Attorney’s Eee. — An order made by a Circuit Judge, instructing a master to “take testimony and report a reasonable fee for plaintiff’s attorney,” settles the question, that the plaintiff’s attorney is entitled to a fee out of the common fund, and if not appealed from, is bi... | 1517 | 8684 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Chief Justice McIver.
This case had been before this Court once before (40 S. C., 255), and its general nature may be ascertained from the case as there reported. All of the other issues having been determined, the only question remaining is as to the counsel .fee of plaint... | ||
368992 | STATE v. KELLEY | State v. Kelley | 1896-03-06 | 659 | 668 | 45 S.C. 659 | 45 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:25:09.283405+00:00 | CAP | STATE v. KELLEY. | STATE v. KELLEY.
Jury — New Trial.- — Where a jury is kept out for more than twenty-four hours with only two meals, in the meantime several times saying to the officer in charge that they could not agree, and desired to be discharged, and once making same statement to Judge, and are after-wards sent back to room with i... | 3490 | 19085 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Chief Justice McIver.
The defendant was indicted for an assault and battery with intent to kill one J. F. Poison. The jury rendered a verdict of guilty, with a recommendation to the mercy of the Court. From the judgment rendered upon this verdict defendant appeals, upon the... | ||
368917 | THE STATE v. THE PORT ROYAL AND AUGUSTA RY. CO.; KING v. SAME | State v. Port Royal & Augusta Ry. Co. | 1895-11-23 | 413 | 457 | 45 S.C. 413 | 45 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:25:09.283405+00:00 | CAP | THE STATE v. THE PORT ROYAL AND AUGUSTA RY. CO. KING v. SAME. | THE STATE v. THE PORT ROYAL AND AUGUSTA RY. CO. KING v. SAME.
1. Removal of Causes. — To render a cause brought in a State Court removable to the Federal Courts, as arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, the facts making it removable must appear on the face of the complaint, and must be... | 16481 | 94418 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Gary.
This is the third appeal in the above entitled cases, heard at the last term of this Court, and is from an order of his Honor, Judge Aldrich, made at chambers on the 3d day of February, 1894, allowing the receiver to issue $50,000 of receiver’s certificates, w... | ||
368980 | KAMINISKY v. TRANTHAM | Kaminisky v. Trantham | 1895-09-09 | 8 | 10 | 45 S.C. 8 | 45 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:25:09.283405+00:00 | CAP | KAMINISKY v. TRANTHAM. | KAMINISKY v. TRANTHAM.
1. Jurisdiction — Forbcbosurb.—A Judge at chambers in another county than the one in which an action in foreclosure is pending, is without jurisdiction to hear a motion,.or to issue a rule, or to order a resale of the premises, without such consent as is contemplated in section 144 of the Code of... | 898 | 5055 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Gary.
The proceeding out of which this appeal grows is based upon an action for the foreclosure of a mortgage, brought by the plaintiff, Hyman Kaminisky, as the assignee of John R. Falls, to whom the mortgage was given by the defendant, W. D. Trantham. Decree for fo... | ||
368938 | SUMTER BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATION v. WINN | Sumter Building & Loan Ass'n v. Winn | 1895-10-10 | 381 | 388 | 45 S.C. 381 | 45 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:25:09.283405+00:00 | CAP | SUMTER BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATION v. WINN. | SUMTER BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATION v. WINN.
1. Buieding and Doan Association. — A building and loan association wbich, in violation of its charter, passes a resolution to divide the assets before the time fixed in its charter for dissolution, forfeits its right to maintain a foreclosure suit against a borrowing membe... | 2426 | 13924 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Pope.
It is made to appear by the “Case” that, in the year 1883, the defendant, D. James Winn, along with certain other citizens, induced the legislature of this State to incorporate them, their associates and successors, into what was called the Sumter Building and... | ||
368934 | THE STATE v. THE PORT ROYAL AND AUGUSTA R. R. CO.; KING v. SAME | State v. Port Royal & Augusta R. R. | 1895-11-25 | 464 | 470 | 45 S.C. 464 | 45 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:25:09.283405+00:00 | CAP | THE STATE v. THE PORT ROYAL AND AUGUSTA R. R. CO. KING v. SAME. | THE STATE v. THE PORT ROYAL AND AUGUSTA R. R. CO. KING v. SAME.
1. ORDER — Receiver — Railroad — Corporation — Appeal.— An. order by a Circuit Judge authorizing a receiver of a railroad to expend funds belonging to the corporation is appealable.
2. Order — Receiver —• Railroad — Notice — Corporation. — An order authori... | 2352 | 13463 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Chiee Justice McIver.
This, which is designated as the “second appeal” in the cases above stated, involves only the question of the validity of five orders, made by his Honor, Judge Aldrich, on the 2d June, 1893, and filed-on the 6th June, 1893, authorizing certain acts to ... | ||
368972 | BRISTOW v. ROSENBERG | Bristow v. Rosenberg | 1896-02-29 | 614 | 621 | 45 S.C. 614 | 45 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:25:09.283405+00:00 | CAP | BRISTOW v. ROSENBERG. | BRISTOW v. ROSENBERG.
Mortgage — Deed—Evidence—Bona Fide Purchaser. — The facts in this case show that the instrument purporting to be a deed was intended as a mortgage, and that the purchaser from the intended mortgagee was fully cognizant of the facts, and is not an innocent purchaser.
Before Fraser, J., Darlington, ... | 2603 | 13996 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Gary.
This action was originally commenced by Belford Bristow, but after the commencement of the action he died, and it was continued in the names of his heirs at law, who were substituted in his stead as parties plaintiff. In 1878, Belford Bristow, a negro, commenc... | ||
368967 | MITCHELL v. CHARLESTON LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY | Mitchell v. Charleston Light & Power Co. | 1895-09-17 | 146 | 160 | 45 S.C. 146 | 45 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:25:09.283405+00:00 | CAP | MITCHELL v. CHARLESTON LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY. | MITCHELL v. CHARLESTON LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY.
1. Requests to Charge — Charge—Exceptions.—Appellant’s first objection to the Judge’s charge is not applicable to the whole charge taken together; and as that is the way this Court must consider a charge, it cannot be sustained.
2. Ibid. — Ibid.—Nor is such charge open to... | 5466 | 30982 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Gary.
The appellant is a corporation engaged in generating and furnishing electricity in the city of Charleston, S. C., for the purpose of illumination and motive power. On the 16th of December, 1893, during the prevalence of a violent wind storm, one of the electri... | ||
368989 | STATE v. SARVIS | State v. Sarvis | 1896-03-06 | 668 | 677 | 45 S.C. 668 | 45 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:25:09.283405+00:00 | CAP | STATE v. SARVIS. | STATE v. SARVIS.
1. Arson — Stat. Construed.- — A person cannot be convicted of arson for burning his own dwelling house either at common law or under Criminal Statutes, 1893, sec. 140, even when burning is done for purpose of defrauding an insurance company.
2. Ibid. — Accessory.—A person cannot be convicted in this S... | 3203 | 18087 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Chief Justice McIver.
The indictment in this case contained two counts — the first charging that the defendant “did feloniously, wilfully, and maliciously set fire to, and caused fire to be set to, a certain house, to wit: a dwelling house there situate of one John D. Sarvi... | ||
368960 | THE BANK OF CHARLESTON v. DOWLING | Bank of Charleston v. Dowling | 1896-03-06 | 677 | 683 | 45 S.C. 677 | 45 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:25:09.283405+00:00 | CAP | THE BANK OF CHARLESTON v. DOWLING. | THE BANK OF CHARLESTON v. DOWLING.
1. Action bob. Possbssion ob Real Propebty — Deed.—An action at law for possession of land, based on a sheriff’s deed under execution sale, cannot be maintained unless the plaintiff had the deed when action was commenced.
2. Dismissal ob Complaint — Equity—Action at Law. — It was erro... | 2329 | 13202 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Gary.
The allegations of the complaint are substantiall}’- as follows: I. The corporate existence of the Bank of Charleston National Banking Association. II. That on the 24th day of'November, 1874, the defendant, B. H. Dowling, in consideration of .$16,000, paid by ... | ||
368964 | THOMASSON v. COMMERCIAL BANK | Thomasson v. Commercial Bank | 1896-02-17 | 570 | 571 | 45 S.C. 570 | 45 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:25:09.283405+00:00 | CAP | THOMASSON v. COMMERCIAL BANK. | THOMASSON v. COMMERCIAL BANK.
Trust — Contract—Bank—Debtor and Creditor. — The certificate of deposit sued on does not create any trust relation between the parties, but only that of debtor and creditor.
Before Benet, J., Columbia, December, 1894.
Reversed.
Action by W. H. Thomasson against Commercial Bank of Columbia,... | 484 | 2910 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Chief Justice McIver.
This case is so identical in principle with the case of Leaphart, ex’trx., ^.Commercial Bank of Columbia, S. C., in which the opinion has just been filed, as to supersede the necessity of adding anything to what is there said. Here, as there, the plain... | ||
368889 | MASON & RISCH CO. v. KILLOUGH MUSIC CO. | Mason v. Killough Music Co. | 1895-09-09 | 11 | 16 | 45 S.C. 11 | 45 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:25:09.283405+00:00 | CAP | MASON & RISCH CO. v. KILLOUGH MUSIC CO. | MASON & RISCH CO. v. KILLOUGH MUSIC CO.
1. Execution. — An execution issued on a judgment before it is entered on the ‘ ‘Abstract of Judgments, ’ ’ as required by sections 300, 301, .and 308 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is void.
2. Advantage of IrrEGUEArity. — The defendant against whom such judgment was obtained is... | 2041 | 11673 | Opinion of the court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Gary.
On the 12th of September, 1895 (mistake for 1894), the plaintiff took judgment by default against the defendant for the sum of $858.76, and obtained leave from his Honor, Judge Townsend, to enter up judgment immediately, on the ground, as set forth in an affidavit... | ||
368965 | RIGBY v. LOGAN | Rigby v. Logan | 1896-03-06 | 651 | 659 | 45 S.C. 651 | 45 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:25:09.283405+00:00 | CAP | RIGBY v. LOGAN. | RIGBY v. LOGAN.
1. Married Woman — Contract—Act oe 1887 — Case Aeeirmed.— Where a contract executed by a married woman is for the benefit of her separate estate, it is not necessary to recite therein her intention to bind her separate estate, as provided in the act of 1887. Gibson v. Hutchins, 43 S. C., 287, affirmed.
... | 2859 | 16580 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Gary.
The facts in this case are stated in the .decree of his Honor, Judge Witherspoon, which, together with the exceptions, will be set out in the report of the case, except the formal part of said decree ordering the sale of the property.
The first and second exce... | ||
368946 | MORGAN v. MORGAN | Morgan v. Morgan | 1895-10-10 | 323 | 338 | 45 S.C. 323 | 45 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:25:09.283405+00:00 | CAP | MORGAN v. MORGAN. | MORGAN v. MORGAN.
1. An Exception to a mere clerical error in a decree, apparent upon inspection, from which appellant could receive no possible harm, will be overruled as harmless error.
2. Decree — Minor—Service.—A decree made in a cause to which a minor was a proper party, based on a bill in equity, filed in 1868 by... | 5487 | 30757 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Pope.
Nathaniel Morgan, who died in the year 1863, while a citizen of Greenville, in this State, left in full force a will, whereof his son, the defendant, John W. Morgan, was appointed executor. By the terms of his will, amongst other things, a life estate was give... | ||
4377214 | KIBLER v. McILWAIN | Kibler v. McIlwain | 1882-03-08 | CASE No. 1161 | 550 | 557 | 16 S.C. 550 | 16 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:14:56.398547+00:00 | CAP | Simpson, C. J., and McGowan, A. J., concurred. | KIBLER v. McILWAIN. | CASE No. 1161.
KIBLER v. McILWAIN.
1. After the sale of a tract of land under the order of’the Court of Equity for the foreclosure of a mortgage, the mortgagor was adjudged a bankrupt, and subsequently the sale was confirmed, the assignee in bankruptcy taking no action in the case. Held, that the jurisdiction of the St... | 2844 | 16118 | The opinion of the court was delivered by
McIver, A. J.
On May 10th, 1867, the plaintiff filed a bill against the defendant, McIlwain, for a foreclosure of a mortgage on real estate. To this bill, amongst other defenses, McIlwain set up a claim of homestead, which was disallowed, and a judgment of foreclosure was rende... |
4377043 | CONEY v. TIMMONS | Coney v. Timmons | 1882-01-12 | CASE No. 1133 | 378 | 387 | 16 S.C. 378 | 16 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:14:56.398547+00:00 | CAP | Simpson, C. J., and McGowan, A. J., concurred. | CONEY v. TIMMONS. | CASE No. 1133.
CONEY v. TIMMONS.
1. Land of A. was sold under legal process and purchased by B., who took titles in his own name, but verbally promised to hold the same in trust for Mrs. A.’s benefit, when paid the amount of his bid, and also certain other sums due by A. to B. Before this sale, B. stated that he would ... | 3274 | 18042 | The opinion of the court was delivered by
Kekshaw, A. A. J.
We do not find sufficient reason to disturb the findings of fact upon which the Circuit judge based his decree. There is sufficient evidence to sustain them. We shall, therefore, determine the questions made by the appeals upon the state of facts so ascertaine... |
4377738 | WALKER & TRENHOLM v. KEE | Walker & Trenholm v. Kee | 1881-10-01 | CASE No. 1093 | 76 | 91 | 16 S.C. 76 | 16 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:14:56.398547+00:00 | CAP | Simpson, C. J., and Mol ver, A. J., concurred. | WALKER & TRENHOLM v. KEE. | CASE No. 1093.
WALKER & TRENHOLM v. KEE.
1. A promissory note payable to a partnership firm, A. & B., was endorsed by A. before maturity in the name of A. & B. to another firm, A., B. & C., and at the same time it was endorsed by A. in the firm name of A., B. & C. to D. D. knew to whom the note originally belonged, and... | 5900 | 33278 | ' The opinion of the court was delivered by
McGowan, A. J.
The firm of “Stevens & Cureton,” consisting of J. H. W. Stevens and Thomas J. Cureton, were in business at Lancaster Court House, and that of “ Cureton, Ardrey & Co.,” consisting of the same partners and one J. W. Ardrey, at Fort Mills, York county.
On December... |
4376888 | STEVENSON v. WILCOX | Stevenson v. Wilcox | 1882-01-20 | CASE No. 1139 | 432 | 435 | 16 S.C. 432 | 16 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:14:56.398547+00:00 | CAP | Simpson, C. J., and McGowan, A. J., concurred. | STEVENSON v. WILCOX. | CASE No. 1139.
STEVENSON v. WILCOX.
Pending application of a widow for administration on her intestate husband’s estate, and because of her illness, a petition was filed by A. for administration pendente lite, and upon his appointment he filed a bond with sureties, in which he was styled administrator pendente lite, bu... | 1063 | 6213 | The opinion of the court was delivered by
Kershaw, A. A. J.
Upon the death of Samuel F. Gibson, in 1867, his widow, Constantine, applied for letters of administration on his estate. On account of ill-health she was unable to appear in the court of ordinary to complete her administration by taking the oath, giving bond,... |
903335 | Franklin PINCKNEY, Respondent v. Ruth P. ATKINS, Appellant | Pinckney v. Atkins | 1995-01-23 | 2291 | 340 | 345 | 317 S.C. 340 | 317 | South Carolina Reports | South Carolina Court of Appeals | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:18:33.394073+00:00 | CAP | Shaw, Cureton, and Goolsby, JJ., concur. | Franklin PINCKNEY, Respondent v. Ruth P. ATKINS, Appellant. | 2291
Franklin PINCKNEY, Respondent v. Ruth P. ATKINS, Appellant.
(454 S.E. (2d) 339)
Court of Appeals
Dale E. Slambrook, of Steinberg, Spitz, Goldberg, Pearl-man, Holmes, White & O’Neill, Goose Greek, for appellant.
JohnB. Williams, Moncks Corner, for respondent.
Submitted Dec. 6, 1994.
Decided Jan 23, 1995. | 1643 | 9831 | Per Curiam:
The pleadings denominate this action as one to remove a cloud from title. Ruth P. Atkins appeals the master’s order granting partition, claiming that not all necessary parties were named as defendants and properly served with process, and that the master failed to value the property and the improvements to ... |
903369 | Veronica Joyce BONAPARTE, as Guardian ad Litem for Emmitt R. Bonaparte, Christopher T. Bonaparte, and Tarrah L. Bonaparte, minors under the age of Fourteen (14) years, Petitioner v. John E. BONAPARTE, as an individual and as Conservator of the Estate of Bonaparte minors, Respondent | Bonaparte v. Bonaparte ex rel. Estate of Bonaparte | 1995-01-09 | 24177 | 256 | 260 | 317 S.C. 256 | 317 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:18:33.394073+00:00 | CAP | Chandler, C.J., Finney and Moore, JJ., and M.D. Shuler, Acting Associate Justice, concur. | Veronica Joyce BONAPARTE, as Guardian ad Litem for Emmitt R. Bonaparte, Christopher T. Bonaparte, and Tarrah L. Bonaparte, minors under the age of Fourteen (14) years, Petitioner v. John E. BONAPARTE, as an individual and as Conservator of the Estate of Bonaparte minors, Respondent. | 24177
Veronica Joyce BONAPARTE, as Guardian ad Litem for Emmitt R. Bonaparte, Christopher T. Bonaparte, and Tarrah L. Bonaparte, minors under the age of Fourteen (14) years, Petitioner v. John E. BONAPARTE, as an individual and as Conservator of the Estate of Bonaparte minors, Respondent.
(452 S.E. (2d) 836)
Supreme Co... | 1147 | 7286 | Waller, Justice:
We granted certiorari to review the Court of Appeals’ opinion in Bonaparte v. Bonaparte, Op. No. 93-UP-292 (Ct. App. filed Nov. 4, 1993). We reverse.
FACTS
Jimmy Bonaparte (Decedent) was killed by his wife, Veronica Bonaparte (Wife). Wife was the sole beneficiary of a $132,000 life insurance policy iss... |
4377447 | PRATER v. WHITTLE | Prater v. Whittle | 1881-09-24 | CASE No. 1086 | 40 | 46 | 16 S.C. 40 | 16 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:14:56.398547+00:00 | CAP | Simpson, C. J., and McIver, A. J., concurred. | PRATER v. WHITTLE. | CASE No. 1086.
PRATER v. WHITTLE.
1. Where a testator by will disposed of his entire estate, and subsequently sold all of his lands and part of his personalty, and then died possessed of some personal property, the will is not revoked and should be admitted to probate. How revocation is effected, expressly or by implic... | 2398 | 13450 | The opinion of the court was delivered by
McGowan, A. J.
On March 9th, 1870, James M. Whittle executed his will, by which he gave to his son-in-law, Milton A. Prater, almost his entire estate, either immediately upon the death of the testator or in remainder after the death of the defendant Rebecca Whittle, and appoint... |
903297 | In the Matter of Edmonds T. BROWN, III, Respondent | In re Brown | 1994-10-24 | 24156 | 25 | 27 | 317 S.C. 25 | 317 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:18:33.394073+00:00 | CAP | In the Matter of Edmonds T. BROWN, III, Respondent. | 24156
In the Matter of Edmonds T. BROWN, III, Respondent.
(450 S.E. (2d) 586)
Supreme Court
Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medloek and Asst. Atty. Gen. James G. Bogle, Jr., Columbia, for complainant.
Justin O’Toole Lucey, of Lucey & Whitten, P.A., Charleston, for respondent.
Submitted Sept. 27, 1994.
Decided Oct. 24, 1994. | 587 | 3744 | Per Curiam:
In this attorney grievance proceeding, respondent admits that he has committed ethical violations and consents to an indefinite suspension from the practice of law in this State. We accept respondent’s admission and suspend him indefinitely from the practice of law in this State.
In April 1992, respondent w... | |
903320 | Jarvis GRAYSON, Respondent v. CARTER RHOAD FURNITURE, Employer, and South Carolina Merchants Assocation, Carrier, Petitioners | Grayson v. Carter Rhoad Furniture | 1995-02-13 | 24193 | 306 | 310 | 317 S.C. 306 | 317 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:18:33.394073+00:00 | CAP | Finney, C.J., Toal and Moore, JJ., and A. Lee Chandler, Acting Associate Justice, concur. | Jarvis GRAYSON, Respondent v. CARTER RHOAD FURNITURE, Employer, and South Carolina Merchants Assocation, Carrier, Petitioners. | 24193
Jarvis GRAYSON, Respondent v. CARTER RHOAD FURNITURE, Employer, and South Carolina Merchants Assocation, Carrier, Petitioners.
(454 S.E (2d) 320)
Supreme Court
F. Earl Ellis, Jr. and Andrew F. Lindemann, Ellis, Lawhome, Davidson & Sims, P.A., Columbia, for petitioner.
J. Marvin Mullis, Jr. and James B. Richardson... | 1006 | 6347 | Waller, Justice:
We granted certiorari to review the Court of Appeals’ decision reported at 312 S.C. 250, 439 S.E. (2d) 859 (Ct. App. 1993). We affirm as modified.
FACTS
This is a worker’s compensation case. Jarvis Grayson was employed as a furniture mover for Petitioner, Carter Rhoad Furniture. He injured his back on ... |
903365 | FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK OF BRUNSWICK, Respondent v. STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, Appellant, Elinor H. Alpert, Individually and as Executrix and sole beneficiary of the Estate of Leonard I. Alpert, Debra L. Alpert, The Escrow Shoppe, Inc., a Corporation, Mary J. Butler, Individually and as the Principal Shareholde... | First Federal Savings Bank ex rel. Estate of Alpert v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. | 1994-11-28 | 2256 | 131 | 145 | 317 S.C. 131 | 317 | South Carolina Reports | South Carolina Court of Appeals | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:18:33.394073+00:00 | CAP | Shaw and Goolsby, JJ., and Howard, Acting Judge, concur. | FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK OF BRUNSWICK, Respondent v. STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, Appellant, Elinor H. Alpert, Individually and as Executrix and sole beneficiary of the Estate of Leonard I. Alpert, Debra L. Alpert, The Escrow Shoppe, Inc., a Corporation, Mary J. Butler, Individually and as the Principal Shareholde... | 2256
FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK OF BRUNSWICK, Respondent v. STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, Appellant, Elinor H. Alpert, Individually and as Executrix and sole beneficiary of the Estate of Leonard I. Alpert, Debra L. Alpert, The Escrow Shoppe, Inc., a Corporation, Mary J. Butler, Individually and as the Principal Share... | 4564 | 27992 | Per Curiam:
First Federal Savings Bank of Brunswick brought these actions at law alleging title defects in two condominium deeds and claiming Stewart Title Guaranty Company had breached mortgagee title insurance contracts by failing to pay First Federal the face amounts reflected in the mortgagee title insurance polici... |
903325 | STATE of South Carolina, Appellant v. FOUR VIDEO SLOT MACHINES: (1) Serial No. 000063, property of Robin Eugene Weeks, 36 Carolina Drive, Greenville, seized from Endless Challenge, 1106 North Pleasantburg Drive, Greenville, Case No. 91-11379; (2) Serial No. 2752, property of Robin Eugene Weeks, 36 Carolina Drive, Green... | State v. Four Video Slot Machines | 1995-01-23 | 24183 | 397 | 402 | 317 S.C. 397 | 317 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:18:33.394073+00:00 | CAP | Moore, J., and George T. Gregory, Jr., Acting Associate Justice, concur. | STATE of South Carolina, Appellant v. FOUR VIDEO SLOT MACHINES: (1) Serial No. 000063, property of Robin Eugene Weeks, 36 Carolina Drive, Greenville, seized from Endless Challenge, 1106 North Pleasantburg Drive, Greenville, Case No. 91-11379; (2) Serial No. 2752, property of Robin Eugene Weeks, 36 Carolina Drive, Green... | 24183
STATE of South Carolina, Appellant v. FOUR VIDEO SLOT MACHINES: (1) Serial No. 000063, property of Robin Eugene Weeks, 36 Carolina Drive, Greenville, seized from Endless Challenge, 1106 North Pleasantburg Drive, Greenville, Case No. 91-11379; (2) Serial No. 2752, property of Robin Eugene Weeks, 36 Carolina Drive,... | 1527 | 9415 | Chandler, Acting Chief Justice:
At issue in this case is whether “Lucky 8 Line” machines are exempt from the provisions of S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2710 (Supp. 1993). The Magistrate held the machines in violation of the statute and ordered their destruction. The Circuit Court reversed the Magistrate’s finding and the Sta... |
903317 | Vida L. CHRISTY, Respondent v. James C. CHRISTY, Appellant; James C. CHRISTY, Respondent v. Vida L. CHRISTY, Appellant | Christy v. Christy | 1994-11-04 | 2207 | 145 | 154 | 317 S.C. 145 | 317 | South Carolina Reports | South Carolina Court of Appeals | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:18:33.394073+00:00 | CAP | Howell, C.J., and Cureton, J., concur. | Vida L. CHRISTY, Respondent v. James C. CHRISTY, Appellant. James C. CHRISTY, Respondent v. Vida L. CHRISTY, Appellant. | 2207
Vida L. CHRISTY, Respondent v. James C. CHRISTY, Appellant. James C. CHRISTY, Respondent v. Vida L. CHRISTY, Appellant.
(452 S.E. (2d) 1)
Court of Appeals
Thomas R. Goldstein, of Belk, Cobb, Chandler & Goldstein, Charleston, for appellant-respondent.
Robert N. Rosen and Donald B. Clark, both of Rosen, Rosen & Hago... | 2371 | 14291 | ORDER TO WITHDRAW ORIGINAL OPINION AND SUBSTITUTE SUBSEQUENT OPINION AND TO DENY PETITION FOR REHEARING
Opinion No. 2207, filed July 25,1994, in the above appeal is hereby withdrawn and the following opinion is substituted therefor.
After a careful consideration of the Petition for Rehearing, the Court is unable to dis... |
903350 | Myra Kay EVANS, Appellant v. RITE AID CORPORATION, 1135 Rite Aid of South Carolina, Inc., Respondent | Evans v. Rite Aid Corp. | 1994-11-28 | 2255 | 154 | 160 | 317 S.C. 154 | 317 | South Carolina Reports | South Carolina Court of Appeals | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:18:33.394073+00:00 | CAP | Goolsby and Connor, JJ., concur. | Myra Kay EVANS, Appellant v. RITE AID CORPORATION, 1135 Rite Aid of South Carolina, Inc., Respondent. | 2255
Myra Kay EVANS, Appellant v. RITE AID CORPORATION, 1135 Rite Aid of South Carolina, Inc., Respondent.
(452 S.E. (2d) 9)
Court of Appeals
W. Mullins McLeod and David F. Groose, North Charleston, for appellant.
Stephen P. Groves, Shawn D. Wallace, and Stephen L. Brown, all of Young, Clement, Rivers & Tisdale, Charle... | 1887 | 11666 | Cureton, Judge:
Appellant, Myra Kay Evans, appeals from three orders dismissing her claims against Rite Aid of South Carolina, Inc. We affirm.
In late October 1989, Evans filed a prescription at the Rite Aid pharmacy in Walterboro, South Carolina. Thereafter, she discovered an employee of the pharmacy falsely told thir... |
903338 | SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Respondent v. James BROWN, Appellant and Mattie Mae Brown, Respondent-Appellant, and Jenea Brown, a Minor Respondent | South Carolina Department of Social Services v. Brown | 1995-01-23 | 2293 | 332 | 340 | 317 S.C. 332 | 317 | South Carolina Reports | South Carolina Court of Appeals | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:18:33.394073+00:00 | CAP | Shaw, Cureton and Goolsby, JJ., concur. | SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Respondent v. James BROWN, Appellant and Mattie Mae Brown, Respondent-Appellant, and Jenea Brown, a Minor Respondent. | 2293
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Respondent v. James BROWN, Appellant and Mattie Mae Brown, Respondent-Appellant, and Jenea Brown, a Minor Respondent.
(454 S.E (2d) 335)
Court of Appeals
C. Bradley Hutto of Williams & Williams, Orangeburg, for appellant.
Zipporah O. Mapp, Orangeburg, for respondent-ap... | 2731 | 16400 | Per Curiam:
This is an appeal from a Family Court order terminating the parental rights of James and Mattie Mae Brown to their daughter Jenea Brown based on a finding that Jenea’s sibling was harmed as defined in § 20-7-490(C), and because of the severity of the abuse and denial of wrongdoing, it is not reasonably like... |
903331 | BISHOP LOGGING COMPANY, Respondent v. JOHN DEERE INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT CO., and Construction Equipment Sales, Inc., Defendants, of whom John Deere Industrial Equipment Co. is Appellant | Bishop Logging Co. v. John Deere Industrial Equipment Co. | 1995-02-13 | 2305 | 520 | 538 | 317 S.C. 520 | 317 | South Carolina Reports | South Carolina Court of Appeals | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:18:33.394073+00:00 | CAP | Shaw and Connor, JJ., concur. | BISHOP LOGGING COMPANY, Respondent v. JOHN DEERE INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT CO., and Construction Equipment Sales, Inc., Defendants, of whom John Deere Industrial Equipment Co. is Appellant. | 2305
BISHOP LOGGING COMPANY, Respondent v. JOHN DEERE INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT CO., and Construction Equipment Sales, Inc., Defendants, of whom John Deere Industrial Equipment Co. is Appellant.
(455 S.E. (2d) 183)
Court of Appeals
M. Dawes Cooke, Jr., Robert P. Gritton and Thomas B.
Pritchard, all of Barnwell, Whaley, Patt... | 6142 | 38307 | Cureton, Judge:
Respondent Bishop Logging Company (Bishop Logging) brought this action against John Deere Industrial Equipment Company (John Deere), Construction Equipment Sales, Inc. (CES), and Denharco, f/k//a Hurricana Metals, charging fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of express warranty in connection ... |
368983 | PEEPLES v. CUMMINGS | Peeples v. Cummings | 1895-09-09 | 107 | 110 | 45 S.C. 107 | 45 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:25:09.283405+00:00 | CAP | PEEPLES v. CUMMINGS. | PEEPLES v. CUMMINGS.
1. FINDINGS OF Pact by the Circuit Judge upon issues purely legal in their nature, submitted to him by consent, -will not be reviewed by this Court.
2. Exceptions. — An exception imputing as error that a “decree is contrary to the law and evidence,” is too general to have consideration by this Cour... | 1190 | 6680 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Gary.
The facts in this case are fully stated in the decree of his Honor, Judge Norton, which will be incorporated in the report of the case. Appellants’ first and second exceptions are as follows:
1. “Because his Honor erred in holding, according to the evidence, t... | ||
368881 | COUNTS v. WILSON | Counts v. Wilson | 1896-02-21 | 571 | 574 | 45 S.C. 571 | 45 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:25:09.283405+00:00 | CAP | COUNTS v. WILSON. | COUNTS v. WILSON.
1. Secondary Evidence — Presumption — Wide—Ordinary.—The admission of secondary evidence of the contents of a lost -will is a preliminary question, and when an ordinary has received a will, and permitted certain persons to make returns as executors, and to do other acts under the will, indicating that... | 1144 | 6413 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Gary.
This is an action for the recovery of a small lot of land in the town of Peake, S. C. The plaintiff claims under a devise in the last will and testament of Adam Stoudmire, who died about the year 1864. Testimony was introduced to show that the said will was de... | ||
369000 | GLOVER v. GLOVER | Glover v. Glover | 1895-09-09 | 51 | 57 | 45 S.C. 51 | 45 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:25:09.283405+00:00 | CAP | GLOVER v. GLOVER. | GLOVER v. GLOVER.
1. Estoppel — Partition.—’Participation in proceedings by an administrator to marshal the assets of the estate, in which a homestead is set off to the widow and children, does not estop the participants to deny the widow’s right to demand partition of the land set off as a homestead.
2. Partition op H... | 1994 | 11254 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Chief Justice McIver.
It appears from the records in this case that Mitchell Glover, on the 19th of April, 1875, departed this life intestate, being seized and possessed of a considerable amount of land, and leaving as his heirs at law his widow, the plaintiff herein, and f... | ||
368970 | THE DURHAM FER. CO. v. HEMPHILL AND GLENN, ASSIGNEES; ALLISON & ADDISON v. SAME | Durham Fer. Co. v. Hemphill | 1896-03-06 | 621 | 642 | 45 S.C. 621 | 45 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:25:09.283405+00:00 | CAP | THE DURHAM FER. CO. v. HEMPHILL AND GLENN, ASSIGNEES. ALLISON & ADDISON v. SAME. | THE DURHAM FER. CO. v. HEMPHILL AND GLENN, ASSIGNEES. ALLISON & ADDISON v. SAME.
1. Assignment — Statute oe Frauds — Mortgage.—The facts, that a member of a firm executes a mortgage on individual property to the firm, which is assigned by it to a bank, and by the bank kept oS the record for two years, and that such mem... | 7451 | 42904 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Cpiiee Justice McIver.
These two cases, resting upon the same state of facts substantially, and depending upon the same .principles of law, were heard and will be considered together. The facts, as gathered from the testimony set out in the “Case,” do not seem to be dispute... | ||
368982 | QUATTLEBAUM v. TAYLOR | Quattlebaum v. Taylor | 1896-01-03 | 512 | 519 | 45 S.C. 512 | 45 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:25:09.283405+00:00 | CAP | QUATTLEBAUM v. TAYLOR. | QUATTLEBAUM v. TAYLOR.
1. Chattel Mortgage — Notice—Recording—Case Distinguished. The instrument in this case construed to be “an instrument in the nature of a mortgage,” and its record, under sec. 1968 of Rev. Stat., is constructive notice thereof to subsequent purchasers. State v. Rice, 43 S. C., 200, distinguished.
... | 2318 | 12973 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Gary.
The facts connected with this case will appear by reference to the judgment of the trial justice and the instrument of writing marked exhibit “B.”
In considering the appellant’s exceptions, we will adopt the arrangement of respondent’s attorney as to the quest... | ||
368909 | LEAPHART v. COMMERCIAL BANK | Leaphart v. Commercial Bank | 1896-02-17 | 563 | 569 | 45 S.C. 563 | 45 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:25:09.283405+00:00 | CAP | LEAPHART v. COMMERCIAL BANK. | LEAPHART v. COMMERCIAL BANK.
1. Contract — Court—Jury.—Tbe contract in this case -was in -writing, and was properly construed by the Court, and not left to the jury.
2. Trust — Banks—Depositor—Debtor and Creditor — Contract. There is no trust relation shown by the contract herein between the parties; but the only relat... | 2461 | 14063 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Chiee Justice McIver.
The plaintiff brought this action to recover from the defendant bank a certain sum of money alleged to have been deposited with said bank by one C.-J. Iredell in breach of an alleged trust reposed in him by the plaintiff. Passing by the first, second, ... | ||
368997 | EX PARTE HAMPTON & BRANCHVILLE RAILROAD v. LUMBER COMPANY | Ex parte Hampton & Branchville Railroad v. Lumber Co. | 1895-09-16 | 122 | 127 | 45 S.C. 122 | 45 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:25:09.283405+00:00 | CAP | EX PARTE HAMPTON & BRANCHVILLE RAILROAD v. LUMBER COMPANY. | EX PARTE HAMPTON & BRANCHVILLE RAILROAD v. LUMBER COMPANY.
Injunction. — The construction of a tramway will not be enjoined at the instance of a railroad company authorized by statute to build a branch road not exceeding five miles in length from its main track, where it appears that the construction of the tramway was... | 1843 | 10809 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Chief Justice McIver.
This is a petition, addressed to this Court, in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, praying that A. T. Goethe and M. W. Ulmer, doing business as partners, under the name and style of Goethe & Ulmer, may be enjoined “from building, constructing, ... | ||
368977 | SALINAS & CO. v. AULTMAN & CO. | Salinas v. Aultman & Co. | 1895-10-01 | 283 | 291 | 45 S.C. 283 | 45 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:25:09.283405+00:00 | CAP | SALINAS & CO. v. AULTMAN & CO. | SALINAS & CO. v. AULTMAN & CO.
1. Judgment — -RES Adjudicata. — A judgment setting aside a deed for fraud is not conclusive against an intervener’s right to maintain a subsequent action for improvements made by the defendant, his grantor, where the Court refused to consider his claim therefor, on the ground that he cou... | 3181 | 18212 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Judge R. C. Watts, acting Associate Justice.
This is an action for betterments, which was heard on the circuit by Judge Buchanan and a jury, at the January term, 1895, of the Court of Common Pleas for Abbeville County. For a proper understanding it is necessary to review the fa... | ||
368998 | VERNER v. PERRY | Verner v. Perry | 1895-10-01 | 262 | 265 | 45 S.C. 262 | 45 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:25:09.283405+00:00 | CAP | VERNER v. PERRY. | VERNER v. PERRY.
1.' Appear — Exception—Code, Secs. 290-294 — Case Eoeeowed. — A point embraced in a master’s report, but not excepted to within ten days after filing, will not be considered. Following McGhee v. Merriman, 43 S. C., 103. Construing Code, secs. 290-294.
2. Ibid. — Ibid.—Code, Sec. 1Ó5 — Discretion.—If, u... | 1275 | 7377 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Pope.
This action was begun by the plaintiffs against the defendants on the equity side of the Court of Common Pleas for Greenville County, in this State, and came on for trial before his Honor, Judge Watts, at the fall term, 1894, of said Court. The decree sustaine... | ||
368994 | SOUTHERN RY. CO. v. CITY COUNCIL OF GREENVILLE | Southern Ry. Co. v. City Council of Greenville | 1896-02-29 | 602 | 605 | 45 S.C. 602 | 45 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:25:09.283405+00:00 | CAP | SOUTHERN RY. CO. v. CITY COUNCIL OF GREENVILLE. | SOUTHERN RY. CO. v. CITY COUNCIL OF GREENVILLE.
Railroad — Municipal Corporation — License Tax. — Where a railroad company owns and operates two connecting lines, under individual names, but under one management, and having but one agent in a city into which both run, where, for the convenience of the public, more than... | 1109 | 6565 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Gary.
This is a controversy submitted without action upon the following agreed statement of facts: “1. That the Southern Railway Company is a corporation created under the laws of Virginia and legally doing business in the State of South Carolina, and that the City ... | ||
368907 | JACOBS v. GILREATH | Jacobs v. Gilreath | 1895-09-09 | 46 | 51 | 45 S.C. 46 | 45 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:25:09.283405+00:00 | CAP | JACOBS v. GILREATH. | JACOBS v. GILREATH.
1. Nonsuit. — Motion for nonsuit should not be granted where there is . any testimony to support the allegations of the complaint.
2. Note — Jury—Alteration.—A material alteration made in a note does not render the contract Void as to any party consenting to, or acquiescing in, such alteration, and ... | 1902 | 10715 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Chief Justice McIver.
This action was commenced on the 8th day of February, 1893, to recover the amount mentioned in a note bearing date the 1st day of January, 1886, whereby the defendant, and one H. G. Gilreath, who, it seems, was her husband, jointly and severally promis... | ||
368988 | THE LAND MORTGAGE CO. v. FAULKNER | Land Mortgage Co. v. Faulkner | 1896-01-03 | 503 | 509 | 45 S.C. 503 | 45 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:25:09.283405+00:00 | CAP | THE LAND MORTGAGE CO. v. FAULKNER. | THE LAND MORTGAGE CO. v. FAULKNER.
1. Findings of Fact. — Under the well established rule of this Court, the findings of fact of the Court below in this case affirmed.
2. Ibid. — Con. 1895, Art. V., SEC. 4, construed not to change the well settled rule of this Court in passing upon questions of fact in chancery-cases, ... | 1988 | 11364 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Gary.
The following statement of facts appears in the case: This is an action for the foreclosure of a mortgage of real estate, situate in Edgefield County, and asking for a sale of the mortgaged premises, and a judgment for the deficiency, and was begun in the Cour... | ||
368901 | PICKENS COUNTY v. DAY | Pickens County v. Day | 1895-09-17 | 161 | 166 | 45 S.C. 161 | 45 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:25:09.283405+00:00 | CAP | PICKENS COUNTY v. DAY. | PICKENS COUNTY v. DAY.
1. Appear — County Commissioners — Craim. —The minutes of a meeting of county commissioners on a certain day contained a statement that the board decided that the question before them was the approval of the claim of D., 1 ‘and as soon as acted upon due notice will be given said parties.” On a la... | 1912 | 11011 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Gary.
On the 17th day of October, 1892, the claimants, Elias Day and R. E. Bowen, filed a claim in the office of the board of county commissioners for Pickens County for the sum of $3,346. On the 24th day of November, 1892, at a meeting of the board of county commis... | ||
368936 | BAUM v. TRANTHAM | Baum v. Trantham | 1895-10-05 | 291 | 312 | 45 S.C. 291 | 45 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:25:09.283405+00:00 | CAP | BAUM v. TRANTHAM. | BAUM v. TRANTHAM.
1. Purchaser — Judgment—Sheriff's Sale — Foreclosure.—A purchaser at a sheriff’s sale, under execution issued on a judgment junior to a mortgage, who seeks to refer his title to a judgment senior to such mortgage, the sale being made after filing of lis pendens, is a proper party to an action to forec... | 7849 | 43908 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Pope.
This cause comes before us on the appeal of the plaintiffs in the above entitled action, which was heard in the Court of Common Pleas for Kershaw County, in this State, by his Honor, Judge Aldrich, at the summer, 1894, term of said Court, and who filed his dec... | ||
368911 | KAMINSKY v. TRANTHAM | Kaminsky v. Trantham | 1895-10-19 | 393 | 408 | 45 S.C. 393 | 45 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:25:09.283405+00:00 | CAP | KAMINSKY v. TRANTHAM. | KAMINSKY v. TRANTHAM.
1. Judgment — Purchaser—Sheriee’s Sate. — A purchaser of land at a sale, made under a junior judgment some months after service of summons to revive a senior judgment, and after expiration of lien of senior judgment, but before decree of revival, to which proceeding neither the purchaser nor the j... | 5425 | 30460 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Gary.
This is an action to foreclose a mortgage on real estate, executed by the defendant, W. D. Trantham, to John R. Falls, on the 25th of September, 1887, and by him assigned to the plaintiff. The facts are fully set out in the decree of the Circuit Judge, which s... | ||
368981 | ATLANTIC PHOS. CO. v. LAW | Atlantic Phos. Co. v. Law | 1896-02-29 | 606 | 610 | 45 S.C. 606 | 45 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:25:09.283405+00:00 | CAP | ATLANTIC PHOS. CO. v. LAW. | ATLANTIC PHOS. CO. v. LAW.
1. Assignment for Benefit of Creditors — Assignee—Liens—Acceptance — Case Distinguished. — A creditor who holds liens on the property of a debtor, who has made an assignment, does not waive such security by accepting under the assignment; and an assignee cannot refuse an acceptance and releas... | 1716 | 10056 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Gary.
This matter was heard at the fall term of the Court of Common Pleas for Darlington County, 1894, on an agreed case, which is as follows: The Atlantic Phosphate Company, a corporation duly created and char-' tered under the laws of this State, claims to have ac... | ||
368943 | TEAGUE v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY | Teague v. Southern Railway Co. | 1895-09-09 | 27 | 32 | 45 S.C. 27 | 45 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:25:09.283405+00:00 | CAP | TEAGUE v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY. | TEAGUE v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
1. Requests to Sustain Judgment on other grounds than those upon which it is rested by the Circuit Judge, appearing for the first time in the argument of respondent, will not be considered.
2. Damages. — In an action by a consignee against a common carrier, to recover for the carryin... | 2078 | 11797 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Pope.
On the 31st day of January, 1895, plaintiff commenced his action before Nathan P. Whitmire, Esq., as a trial justice in and for Greenville County in this State, against the defendant. The following is a copy of the summons issued by said trial justice and serv... | ||
368993 | LITTLEJOHN v. R. & D. R. R. CO. | Littlejohn v. R. & D. R. R. | 1895-09-19 | 181 | 183 | 45 S.C. 181 | 45 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:25:09.283405+00:00 | CAP | LITTLEJOHN v. R. & D. R. R. CO. | LITTLEJOHN v. R. & D. R. R. CO.
1. NEGEiGENCE — Raieroads.—Under section 1685 of Revised Statutes, the failure of a railroad company to sound the whistle or ring the bell on its engine before moving a train of freight cars, standing with some cars above, some on, and some below a traveled crossing in a town, makes out ... | 972 | 5540 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Pope.
This action came on for trial at the August, 1893, term of the Court of Common Pleas for Spartanburg County, before his Honor, Judge Wallace, and a jury. By the findings, it was alleged that the plaintiff, on the 19th August, 1891, while passing between a-trai... | ||
368887 | BUSBY v. FLORIDA &c. R. R. | Busby v. Florida &c. R. R. | 1895-10-10 | 312 | 319 | 45 S.C. 312 | 45 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:25:09.283405+00:00 | CAP | BUSBY v. FLORIDA &c. R. R. | BUSBY v. FLORIDA &c. R. R.
1. Adverse Possession. — A person who lias been in adverse possession of land for the statutory period has a good and valid title by virtue of such adverse possession, which may be affirmatively asserted against one not protected by some disability.
2. Ibid. — State—Limitations oe Actions. — ... | 2323 | 13030 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Chief Justice McIver.
This was an action to recover damages caused by sparks of fire emitted from a locomotive engine of the defendant company, which ignited combustible material on defendant’s right of way, from which the fire spread over the lands of plaintiff. In defenda... | ||
368884 | CROKER v. TOWN OF BEAUFORT | Croker v. Town of Beaufort | 1895-10-01 | 269 | 278 | 45 S.C. 269 | 45 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:25:09.283405+00:00 | CAP | CROKER v. TOWN OF BEAUFORT. | CROKER v. TOWN OF BEAUFORT.
Pubeic Easement — Aeeeyway—Adverse Possession — Injunction.— Where a strip of land appears on a map of a town in 1820 as an alleyway, and again on a map of same by United States direct tax commissioners between 1861-5 as an alley, but appeared on a copy of a copy of this map as a lot, for wh... | 3154 | 17551 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Pope.
This action has been before this Court once before, and our decision on the first appeal will be found 37 S. C., 327. The cause came on for trial before his Honor, Judge Townsend, at summer, 1894, term of the Court of Commpn Pleas for Beaufort County, in this ... | ||
368923 | HILL v. GRAY | Hill v. Gray | 1895-09-09 | 91 | 96 | 45 S.C. 91 | 45 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:25:09.283405+00:00 | CAP | HILL v. GRAY. | HILL v. GRAY.
1. Claim oe Dower. — In an action to foreclose a mortgage against the ■widow and children of a deceased mortgagor, the widow need not make her claim of dower, unless there are proper allegations in the complaint raising that issue.
2. Res Adjudicata. — A judgment foreclosing a mortgage on a decedent’s est... | 1892 | 10678 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Chief Justice McIver.
This was a proceeding originally instituted in the Court of Probate, by which the plaintiff demanded dower in a tract of land in the possession of the defendants. The judge of probate rendered his decree allowing dower, and from that decree defendants ... | ||
368953 | LUDDEN & BATES SOUTHERN MUSIC HOUSE v. HORNSBY | Ludden & Bates Southern Music House v. Hornsby | 1895-09-10 | 111 | 121 | 45 S.C. 111 | 45 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:25:09.283405+00:00 | CAP | LUDDEN & BATES SOUTHERN MUSIC HOUSE v. HORNSBY. | LUDDEN & BATES SOUTHERN MUSIC HOUSE v. HORNSBY.
1. Lease. — An instrument leasing an organ for a specified time at a designated monthly rental, with, a proviso that the lessee may at any time within such term purchase the instrument by paying the amount of rental value for the designated time, in which case only all am... | 3984 | 22562 | The opinion of the court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Pope.
The defendant, under her hand and seal, on the 25th day of June, 1886, executed a lease of “one Packard organ, style 18, No. 2507,” for the term of twenty-two months, at a rental of $5, to be paid on the 25th of each of the twenty-two months, with a proviso in... | ||
368876 | DeSCHAMPS v. THE GERMAN &C. INSURANCE CO. | DeSchamps v. German &c. Insurance | 1896-01-26 | 536 | 537 | 45 S.C. 536 | 45 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:25:09.283405+00:00 | CAP | DeSCHAMPS v. THE GERMAN &C. INSURANCE CO. | DeSCHAMPS v. THE GERMAN &C. INSURANCE CO.
Appeal — Return—Exceptions.—The twenty days within which appellant is required to file his “Return” does not commence to run until the expiration of the thirty days within which appellant is allowed to serve his proposed case with exceptions, even though he may have previously ... | 496 | 2942 | PER Curiam.
This was a motion to reinstate an appeal dismissed by the clerk, under Rule 1, for failure to file the “return” within the prescribed time. That rule requires that the “return” shall be filed within twenty days after the papers constituting said “return” shall be completed; and Rule 2 provides what papers s... | ||
368950 | HEATH v. HAILE | Heath v. Haile | 1896-03-06 | 642 | 651 | 45 S.C. 642 | 45 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:25:09.283405+00:00 | CAP | HEATH v. HAILE. | HEATH v. HAILE.
Damages — Mortgagor—Mortgagee—Grantee.—An action for damages will lie by a mortgagee against a grantee of a mortgagor for tbe removal by him before sale of buildings put on premises by him; but the amount of damages cannot exceed the balance due on the mortgage debt after applying proceeds of land, or t... | 3235 | 18166 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Chief Justice McIver.
The plaintiffs are the owners and holders of a mortgage on certain real estate, •executed by one R. W. Draffin, on the 30th of January, 1888, to secure the payment of a note for $7,000. On the 4th day of July, 1891, the said Draffin conveyed the mortga... | ||
368899 | RAGSDALE v. THE WINNSBORO BANK | Ragsdale v. Winnsboro Bank | 1896-02-21 | 575 | 583 | 45 S.C. 575 | 45 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:25:09.283405+00:00 | CAP | RAGSDALE v. THE WINNSBORO BANK. | RAGSDALE v. THE WINNSBORO BANK.
1. Creditor, and Debtor — Release—Assignment—Principal and Surety — Rev. Stat., 2311. — -A creditor releasing a debtor in accordance with the terms of an assignment, executed under Rev. Stat., 2311, does not thereby release the surety, unless it so affirmatively appear on the face of the... | 3129 | 18686 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Gary.
This action was commenced in the Court of Common Pleas for Fairfield County by the plaintiff, as assignee, for the benefit of the creditors of Alexander Williford, Quay D. Williford, and Wade H. Williford, against all the creditors of the said assignors, and t... | ||
368944 | KIRK v. DUREN | Kirk v. Duren | 1896-02-29 | 597 | 602 | 45 S.C. 597 | 45 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:25:09.283405+00:00 | CAP | KIRK v. DUREN. | KIRK v. DUREN.
Judgment — Coeeaterae Attack — Equity—Ceoud onTitee. — A judgment cannot be attacked collaterally, if valid on its face; and if void upon its face, so as to be disregarded in any proceeding where it might come in question, a court of equity will not entertain an action to set it aside upon the ground tha... | 1699 | 9316 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Gary.
In order to understand fully the facts of this case, it will be necessary to set out in the report of the case the complaint of the plaintiff. As the complaint shows that the plaintiff was not the owner and holder of the alleged státutory lien at the time of t... | ||
368928 | STATE v. THE PORT ROYAL AND AUGUSTA RY. CO.; KING v. SAME | State v. Port Royal & Augusta Ry. Co. | 1895-11-30 | 470 | 483 | 45 S.C. 470 | 45 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:25:09.283405+00:00 | CAP | STATE v. THE PORT ROYAL AND AUGUSTA RY. CO. KING v. SAME. | STATE v. THE PORT ROYAL AND AUGUSTA RY. CO. KING v. SAME.
1. Appear — Removal oe Causes — Courts—Jurisdiction.—While a trial court should not, pending an appeal from its order refusing to grant a removal of the case to the Eederal Court, proceed with the case until after a decision on the appeal, the decision of the Co... | 4652 | 27308 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Pope.
On the 27th day of January, 1893, these actions were commenced. The complaint sets forth with great care circumstances that may be thus partially summarized: In 3857 an act was passed by the General Assembly of this State incorporating certain persons under th... | ||
368932 | JENKINS v. McCARTHY | Jenkins v. McCarthy | 1895-10-01 | 278 | 282 | 45 S.C. 278 | 45 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:25:09.283405+00:00 | CAP | JENKINS v. McCARTHY. | JENKINS v. McCARTHY.
1. Nonsuit. — It was not error in Circuit-Judge to grant nonsuit in this case upon ground that there was no proof of negligence.
2. Evidence. — In this case there is an utter absence of testimony to show the lack of proper means, or the want of proper care, in driving the piles in question.
3. Peea... | 1609 | 9094 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Pope.
This action came on for trial before his Honor, Judge Ernest Gary, and a jury, at the February term, 1895, of the Court of Common Pleas for Beaufort County, in this State.. It seems that one Joseph Jenkins, while laboring for the "defendant in making excavatio... | ||
368921 | LADSON v. MOSTOWITZ | Ladson v. Mostowitz | 1895-10-17 | 388 | 393 | 45 S.C. 388 | 45 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:25:09.283405+00:00 | CAP | LADSON v. MOSTOWITZ. | LADSON v. MOSTOWITZ.
1. Complaint — Demurrer.—A complaint which states any cause of action is not demurrable.
2. Claim and Delivery — Complaint.—An allegation of demand and refusal is not necessary in an action in claim and delivery against a defendant who took the chattel wrongfully, with notice of plaintiff’s title.
... | 1635 | 9508 | The opinion of -the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Gary.
This is an action for claim and delivery of certain personal property. The defendant, Prime White, demurred to the complaint, which, together with appellant’s exceptions, will be incorporated in the report of the case, on the ground that it appears upon the f... | ||
368978 | MOLE v. FOLK | Mole v. Folk | 1895-10-01 | 265 | 269 | 45 S.C. 265 | 45 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:25:09.283405+00:00 | CAP | MOLE v. FOLK. | MOLE v. FOLK.
1. EXCEPTION. — An exception alleging that the judgment “is entirely contrary to the facts and the law, ’ ’ is too general to be considered on appeal.
2. Adverse Possession — Cotenants—Ouster-Case Distinguished. The adverse possession of lands by one cotenant for the statutory period after ouster gives th... | 1418 | 7956 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Pope,
This action was commenced on the 12th day of September, 1893. Its.purpose was to secure a partition between the plaintiff and defendants of a tract of land, situate in Barnwell County, in this State, so that the plaintiff might have allotted to him one-fifth p... | ||
368958 | THE BRITISH AMERICAN MORTGAGE CO. v. SMITH ET AL. | British American Mortgage Co. v. Smith | 1895-09-09 | 83 | 86 | 45 S.C. 83 | 45 | South Carolina Reports | Supreme Court of South Carolina | South Carolina | 2021-08-10T17:25:09.283405+00:00 | CAP | THE BRITISH AMERICAN MORTGAGE CO. v. SMITH ET AL. | THE BRITISH AMERICAN MORTGAGE CO. v. SMITH ET AL.
1. Assignee — Mortgage—Note.—The assignee of a note and mortgage transferred after maturity, takes them subject to any and all defenses or equities existing between the parties.
Before Aldrich, J., Union, March 26, 1895.
Affirmed.
Action by the British American Mortgage... | 1288 | 7372 | The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Chief Justice McIver.
The only question presented by this appeal is whether the mortgage held by the appellant, as assignee, has priority over the mortgage held by the plaintiff. So far as this question turns upon conclusions of fact, we are bound, under the well settled ru... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.