Nilson v. Dowling

9 Citing cases

  1. Crouch v. Tarver

    173 S.C. 172 (S.C. 1934)   Cited 6 times

    Messrs. Hendersons Salley, for appellant, cite: As toitems sent to bank for collection: 136 S.C. 511; 77 A.L. R., 465; 24 A.L.R., 1148; 85 A.L.R., 362; 166 S.C. 1; 168 S.C. 323; 168 S.C. 331; 170 S.C. 342. Entries: 112 S.C. 230; 166 S.C. 249; 170 S.C. 342. Preference: 165 S.C. 230; 155 S.C. 222. Messrs. H.L. O'Bannon and Williams Busbee, for respondent, cite: As to appeal: 143 S.C. 325; 141 S.E., 564; 143 S.C. 193; 141 S.E., 362; 144 S.C. 70; 142 S.E., 36; 143 S.C. 417; 141 S.E., 681; 150 S.C. 244; 149 S.C. 338; 150 S.C. 45; 147 S.E., 661; 161 S.C. 249; 159 S.E., 536; 156 S.C. 203; 165 S.C. 137; 163 S.E., 125; 164 S.C. 20; 141 S.C. 145; 168 S.E., 541; 138 S.E., 815. Issue must be raised in Court below: 161 S.C. 515; 159 S.E., 831; 139 S.C. 545; 138 S.E., 354; 155 S.C. 152; 152 S.E., 179; 140 S.C.; 1; 124 S.C. 415; 142 S.C. 284; 140 S.E., 560; 122 S.E., 858; 50 S.C. 514; 121 S.E., 472. July 9, 1934.

  2. Cothran v. S.C. Nat'l Bank of Charleston

    130 S.E.2d 177 (S.C. 1963)   Cited 10 times

    8; 194 S.C. 290, 9 S.E.2d 537; 215 S.C. 336, 55 S.E.2d 70; 71 C.J.S. 1030, Sec. 508 (2); 22 F.S. 359; 55 N.Y.S.2d 713; 99 N.Y.S.2d 302. As to it being errorto strike portions of the answer of the Appellant, SouthCarolina National Bank as Trustee: 194 S.C. 290, 9 S.E.2d 537; 215 S.C. 336, 55 S.E.2d 70; 219 S.C. 231, 64 S.E.2d 641; 86 S.C. 152, 68 S.E. 466; 102 A.2d 535; 90 F.S. 66; 192 N.W. 42; 196 N YS. 296; 252 N.Y.S. 140; 148 N.Y.S. 405; 198 S.C. 457, 18 S.E.2d 1; 235 S.C. 119, 110 S.E.2d 17. As to it being error to refuse the motionfor an Order of Reference: 139 A.2d 23. Messrs. Benjamin B. Dunlap and Victor S. Evans, AssistantAttorneys General, of Columbia, for Appellant,Daniel R. McLeod, Attorney General.Messrs. Hinson Hamer, of Greenville, for Respondent,Jane Sirrine Cothran, cite: As to the trial Judge beingjustified in passing upon certain issues in disposing of themotions before the Court: 158 S.C. 534, 155 S.E. 890; 239 S.C. 120, 121 S.E.2d 444; 216 S.C. 500, 59 S.E.2d 132; 161 S.C. 515, 159 S.E. 831; 174 F.2d 407; 115 A. 159, 382 Pa. 311; 228 F.2d 486; 280 F.2d 202; 142 S.C. 407, 141 S.E. 26; 226 S.C. 313, 85 S.E.2d 104, 48 A.L.R.2d 1241. As to the trial Judge correctly interpreting "netincome" under the South Carolina Law: 5 S.C. Eq. (Harp.) 65, 14 Am. Dec. 696; 24 A.L.R. 13; Anno. 130 A.L.R. 499; 197 S.C. 6, 14 S.E.2d 364; 28 Pa. 368; 141 S.E. 28; (S.C.) 128 S.E.2d 664; 230 S.C. 39, 94 S.E.2d 15. As to the trial Judgeproperly disposing of the defenses of laches, waiver andestoppel as set forth in the Appellant's Answer: 239 S.C. 232, 122 S.E.2d 417; 168 S.C. 272, 167 S.E. 465; 90 S.C. 90, 72 S.E. 638; 90 S.C. 61, 72 S.E. 553; (S.C.) 123 S.E.2d 870. As to it being proper forthe trial Judge to deny a reference until the applicablelaw is determined: 230 S.C. 109, 94 S.E.2d 237; 238 S.C. 539, 121 S.E.2d 94; (S.C.) 127 S.E.2d 627; 236 S.C. 31, 113 S.E.2d 75; (S.C.) 128 S.E.2d 682.

  3. Swift Co. v. Cook

    15 S.E.2d 773 (S.C. 1941)   Cited 4 times

    Further ordered and adjudged that the plaintiff have judgment against the defendant for the possession of the property covered by the chattel mortgage, as set forth in the complaint, or if delivery thereof cannot be had, then for the sum of $450.00, the value of the chattels as given in the complaint, subject to a credit of $47.16, as above set forth, together with the costs of this action. Mr. J. Woodrow Lewis, of Hartsville, for the appellant, cites: As to pleadings: 172 S.C. 549; 174 S.E., 590; 139 S.C. 324; 138 S.E., 34; 161 S.C. 515; 159 S.E., 831; 77 S.C. 493; 58 S.E., 424; 215 U.S. 252; 30 S.Ct., 78; 54 L.Ed., 179; 149 S.C. 424; 147 S.E., 315; 111 S.C. 54; 106 S.E., 771; 16 S.C. 352; 8 Rich., 35; 13 S.C. 332; 97 S.C. 389; 81 S.E., 665; 139 S.C. 324; 138 S.E., 34; 130 S.C. 40; 126 S.E., 133; 6 S.C. 113; 97 S.C. 389; 81 S.E., 665; 101 S.C. 185; 85 S.E., 1070; 100 S.C. 196; 84 S.E., 710; 172 S.C. 549; 174 S.E., 590; 97 S.C. 389; 81 S.E., 665; 171 S.C. 419; 172 S.E., 430. Mr. Samuel Want, Mr. James S. Verner and Mr. SamRogol, all of Darlington, for respondent, cite: As to pleading: 184 S.C. 428; 192 S.E., 413; 1932 Code, Sec. 587; 1932 Code, Sec. 470; 130 S.C. 404; 126 S.E., 133; 139 S.C. 286; 137 S.E., 740.

  4. Goza v. J. I. Case Co.

    12 S.E.2d 733 (S.C. 1940)   Cited 2 times

    Action by Marvell W. Goza against the J.I. Case Company and another for breach of contract to cut oat crop, wherein named defendant filed counterclaim. From an order setting aside verdict on counterclaim and dismissing the counterclaim, the named defendant appeals. Mr. Marion Moise, for appellant, cites: Motion for newtrial: 190 S.C. 508; 3 S.E.2d 247; 183 S.C. 279; 190 S.E., 923; 139 S.C. 139; 137 S.E., 434; 69 S.C. 283; 48 S.E., 248; 98 S.C. 136; 82 S.E., 391; 94 S.C. 18; 77 S.E., 712; 68 S.C. 110; 46 S.E., 943; 47 S.C. 34; 24 S.E., 1026; 175 S.C. 209; 178 S.E., 844; 32 S.C. 57; 10 S.E., 616; 93 S.C. 365; 76 S.E., 988; 94 S.C. 18; 77 S.E., 712; 103 U.S. 62; 42 S.C. 132; 20 S.E., 30; 68 S.C. 110; 46 S.E., 943; 69 S.C. 283; 48 S.E., 248. Waiver: 84 S.C. 256; 66 S.E., 120; 122 S.C. 314; 115 S.E., 312; 34 S.C. 301; 13 S.E., 539; 30 S.C. 111; 8 S.E., 639; 70 S.C. 89; 48 S.E., 987; 158 S.C. 534; 155 S.E., 890; 161 S.C. 515; 159 S.E., 831. Notice: 175 S.C. 209; 178 S.E., 844; 50 S.C. 514; 27 S.E., 952; 50 S.C. 310; 27 S.E., 770; 70 S.C. 89; 48 S.E., 987. Mr. M.M. Weinberg, for respondent.

  5. Hudson Housner, Inc., v. Felder

    3 S.E.2d 40 (S.C. 1939)   Cited 5 times

    Action by Hudson Housner, Inc., against Grace K. Felder for breach of contract to grow and deliver potatoes. From an order overruling a demurrer to the answer, the plaintiff appeals. Mr. C.E. Summers, for appellant, cites: Pleadings: 161 S.C. 515; 159 S.E., 831; 97 S.C. 389; 81 S.E., 665; 70 S.C. 89. Messrs. Lide Felder and Louis Rosen, for respondent, cite: As to demurrer to pleadings: 71 S.C. 1; 50 S.E., 544; 4 Ann. Cas., 68; 108 S.C. 66; 93 S.E., 422; 44 S.C. 143; 21 S.E., 615; 57 S.C. 502; 35 S.E., 759; 115 S.C. 421; 106 S.E., 33.

  6. Riddle v. George

    181 S.C. 360 (S.C. 1936)   Cited 25 times

    Mr. Fred H. Dominick, for appellant, cites: Testimony asto transaction between parties: 89 S.C. 347; 67 N.E., 633; 106 S.C. 519; 91 S.E., 869. Statute of Frauds: 146 S.C. 59; 143 S.E., 552. Messrs. Blease Griffith, for respondent, cite: Exceptions: 110 S.C. 163; 96 S.E., 250; 161 S.C. 515; 159 S.E., 831. Quantum meruit: 51 C.J., 115; 146 S.C. 59; 143 S.E., 552; 155 S.C. 370; 152 S.E., 512; 155 S.C. 370. As to testimony relating to transactions with deceased person: 47 S.C. 488; 25 S.E., 797; 89 S.C. 347; 71 S.E., 969; 113 S.C. 88; 101 S.E., 113; 55 S.C. 510; 33 S.E., 720; 72 S.C. 556; 52 S.E., 421; 37 S.C. 145; 16 S.E., 770; 44 S.C. 22; 21 S.E., 976; 21 S.C. 597; 38 S.C. 158; 17 S.E., 701; 41 S.C. 125; 19 S.E., 291; 59 S.C. 523; 38 S.E., 158; 104 S.C. 388; 89 S.E., 337. Statuteof Frauds: 3 S.C. 298; 26 S.C. 90; 1 S.E., 373; 56 S.C. 558; 35 S.E., 221; 57 S.C. 559; 35 S.E., 757; 67 S.C. 108; 45 S.C. 146; 131 S.C. 245; 126 S.E., 749. September 10, 1936.

  7. Cannon v. Haverty Furniture Co.

    179 S.C. 1 (S.C. 1935)   Cited 12 times

    rict v. Fowles, 87 S.C. 552, 70 S.E., 315; Hendrix v. Holden, 58 S.C. 495, 36 S.E., 1010; McCulloughv. Hicks, 63 S.C. 542, 41 S.E., 761; New YorkLife Insurance Company v. Mobley, 90 S.C. 552, 73 S.E., 1032; Tolbert v. Roark, 126 S.C. 207, 119 S.E., 571; Coogler v. Crosby, 89 S.C. 508, 72 S.E., 149; Whaley v.Lawton, 62 S.C. 91, 40 S.E., 128, 56 L.R.A., 649; Crocker v. Allen, 34 S.C. 452, 13 S.E., 650, 27 Am. St. Rep., 831; Wilkins v. Hall, 2 McCord, 205; Feld v. Loftis, 240 Ill., 105, 88 N.E., 281; Johnson v. Scott, 134 Ky., 736, 121 S.W. 695; Baker v. Brewer, 129 S.C. 74, 123 S.E., 771; Prince v. Dickson, 39 S.C. 477, 18 S.E., 33, 34; Jennings v. Clearwater Mfg. Co., 171 S.C. 498, 172 S.E., 870; Blount v. Walker, 28 S.C. 545, 6 S.E., 558; Lewis v. Botkin, 4 W. Va., 533; Haller v. Digman, 113 W. Va., 240, 167 S.E., 593; Sandel v. Whisenhunt, 168 S.C. 129, 167 S.E., 166; Crouch v. Tarver, 173 S.C. 172, 175 S.E., 273; White v. Railway Company, 142 S.C. 284, 140 S.E., 560, 57 A.L.R., 634; Nilson v. Dowling, 161 S.C. 515, 159 S.E., 831. The above-named cases which we have been able to investigate are not, in our opinion, in conflict with the views we have expressed herein.

  8. Smith v. Peeples et al

    177 S.C. 479 (S.C. 1935)   Cited 9 times

    n of trial Judge: 80 S.C. 557; 61 S.E., 1012; 81 S.C. 24; 61 S.E., 1064; 65 S.C. 242; 43 S.E., 671; 109 S.C. 385; 96 S.E., 137; 118 S.C. 24; 110 S.E., 69; 154 S.C. 366; 151 S.C. 608; 159 S.C. 191; 156 S.E., 357; 166 S.C. 44; 164 S.E., 213; 172 S.C. 200; 173 S.E., 638; 162 S.C. 162; 160 S.E., 432; 153 S.C. 25; 150 S.E., 321; 148 S.C. 392; 36 S.C. 39; 11 S.E., 440; 81 S.C. 820; 61 S.E., 1063; 91 S.C. 139; 74 S.E., 363; 149 S.C. 445; 147 S.E., 600. Question must be raised in lower Court to be considered onappeal: 173 S.C. 172; 175 S.E., 273; 171 S.C. 396; 172 S.E., 419; 171 S.C. 511; 172 S.E., 857; 168 S.C. 129; 167 S.E., 166; 168 S.C. 185; 167 S.E., 239; 167 S.C. 534; 166 S.E., 634; 160 S.C. 359; 158 S.E., 737; 155 S.C. 47; 151 S.E., 920; 156 S.C. 238; 151 S.C. 537; 149 S.E., 241; 142 S.C. 284; 140 S.C. 560; 143 S.C. 1; 141 S.E., 144; 145 S.C. 539; 143 S.E., 269; 177 S.E., 791. As to motion for nonsuit: 167 S.C. 98; 165 S.E., 777; 166 S.C. 448; 165 S.E., 184; 165 S.C. 43; 162 S.E., 582; 161 S.C. 515; 159 S.E., 831; 169 S.C. 1; 168 S.C. 520. Misstatement of issue should becalled to Court's attention: 145 S.C. 196; 143 S.E., 31; 146 S.C. 7; 143 S.C. 362; 162 S.C. 162; 160 S.E., 432; 148 S.C. 511; 146 S.E., 534; 167 S.C. 383; 166 S.E., 401; 164 S.C. 432; 162 S.E., 456; 165 S.C. 15; 162 S.E., 574; 173 S.C. 1; 174 S.E., 581; 172 S.C. 200; 173 S.E., 638; 171 S.C. 396; 172 S.E., 419; 163 S.C. 86; 161 S.E., 331; 163 S.C. 302; 161 S.E., 504; 163 S.C. 342; 161 S.E., 525; 163 S.C. 506; 161 S.C. 777; 151 S.C. 366; 149 S.E., 119; 151 S.C. 417; 149 S.E., 162; 151 S.C. 527; 149 S.E., 241. October 7, 1935.

  9. Hall v. Equitable L. Assur. Soc. of U.S.

    177 S.C. 148 (S.C. 1935)   Cited 20 times

    Messrs. Thomas, Lumpkin Cain and Lide Felder, for appellant, cite: Total disability: 153 S.C. 401; 172 S.C. 139; 158 S.C. 394; 100 S.C. 121; 84 S.E., 413; 101 S.W. 1179; 103 S.W. 965. Messrs. M.E. Zeigler and W.C. Wolfe, for respondent, cite: Total and permanent disability: 153 S.C. 401; 151 S.E., 67; 164 S.C. 444; 162 S.E., 429; 170 S.C. 294; 170 S.E., 349. Waiver: 168 S.C. 129; 167 S.E., 166; 161 S.C. 515; 159 S.E., 831; 172 S.C. 139; 173 S.E., 307. August 9, 1935.