Edwards v. Coleman

11 Citing cases

  1. Yawkey v. Lowndes

    150 S.C. 493 (S.C. 1929)   Cited 26 times

    "XIV. That his Honor erred in holding that the property of William Lowndes and of his wife, Eliza B. Lowndes, were contiguous and parts of a whole without anything to separate them, whereas he should have held that the said lots were separate and distinct properties coming from separate and distinct deeds and duly separated, marked, and defined, each lot containing a dwelling house thereon, and the deed from Eliza B. Lowndes not only giving the dimensions of the said lot, but bounding it on land therein stated to be in the ownership of another." Messrs. George F. VonKolnitz, and H.L. Erckmann, for appellant, cite: As to agency for sale of land: 139 S.C. 369; 86 S.C. 76; 84 S.C. 197; 27 R.C.L., 108. Duty of onedealing with agent to use due care to ascertain scope ofagent's authority: 127 S.E., 562; 65 S.C. 558; 139 S.C. 369; 101 U.S. 699. Written contracts operate as merger ofall prior oral and written negotiations: 102 S.C. 138; 135 S.E., 363. There is no such thing as estoppel by deed: 21 C.J., 1088. As to presence of fraud here: 135 U.S. 609; 142 U.S. 55; 192 U.S. 241. Where equities are equalparties will be left where found: 22 F.2d 129. As tospecific performance: 21 S.C. 117; 127 S.C. 233; 109 S.C. 255. Messrs. F.W. DeFoe, and M.C. Woods, for respondent, cite: As to agency: 124 S.C. 346; 135 S.C. 365; 97 S.C. 148; 80 S.C. 207. Implied authority: 2 C.J., 435; 1 Mechem Law Agency, Sec. 246. Ratification: 21 R.C.L., 927; 2 C.J., 505, 492; 21 R.C.L., 931; 33 S.C. 206; 23 C.J., 47; 102 Minn., 8. Estoppel: Mechem Law Agency, Sec. 720; 10 R.C.L., 694; 79 S.W. 1013; 67 S.C. 432; 22 S.C. 548; 72 S.C. 47; 84 S.C. 426; 33 S.C. 206. "Abstract of

  2. Gallant v. Todd et al

    111 S.E.2d 779 (S.C. 1960)   Cited 5 times

    63 S.E. 855; Greenleaf on Evidence, Sec. 277. Messrs. Murchison, West Marshall, of Camden, and E. Harry Agnew, of Anderson, for Respondents, cite: Asto Appellant having no right to execute a contract of saleon behalf of Respondent, so as to bind Respondent to conveycertain real property: 43 A.L.R.2d 1015, 1016, 1020; 139 S.C. 369, 138 S.E. 42; 150 S.C. 493, 148 S.E. 554; 223 S.C. 39, 74 S.E.2d 42; 86 S.C. 76; 45 Or. 30, 76 P. 13, 65 L.R.A. 783, 106 Am. St. Rep. 647. January 4, 1960.

  3. Bolen v. Smith et al

    223 S.C. 39 (S.C. 1953)   Cited 4 times

    Messrs. Thurmond, Lybrand Simons, of Aiken, forAppellants, cite: As to agent being without authority toenter into a binding contract of sale: 139 S.C. 369, 138 S.E. 42; 9 C.J. 526; 144 Va. 126, 131 S.E. 209, 48 A.L.R. 632; 48 A.L.R. 635-638; 4 R.C.L. 262; 48 R.C.L. 639; 75 Kan. 773, 90 P. 267; 48 A.L.R. 652; 30 Tex. Civ. App. 615, 71 S.W. 580; 86 S.C. 76, 67 S.E. 906. As tocontract for sale of real estate not being in writing: 188 S.C. 431, 199 S.E. 675.

  4. Housand v. Armour Co.

    173 S.C. 268 (S.C. 1934)   Cited 10 times

    Action by Nina R. Housand against Armour Co., W.G. Moore, trading as the Conway Wholesale Grocery Company, and J. Austin Powell. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal. Messrs. H.H. Woodward and W.C. Kirk, for appellant, Armour Co., cite: Testimony of expert: 121 S.E., 363; 141 S.E., 504; 11 R.C.L., 574; 91 S.C. 523; 163 S.E., 22; 183 N.C. 309; 111 S.E., 517; 184 N.W., 84. As tohearsay evidence: 144 S.C. 212; 142 S.E., 516; 131 S.C. 26; 81 S.C. 554; 128 S.C. 1; 121 S.E., 554; 126 S.C. 1; 119 S.E., 776; 2 Brev., 461; 10 R.C.L., 959. Agency: 160 S.E., 130; 139 Ala., 359; 36 So., 12; 139 S.C. 369; 166 N.C. 9; 17 S.C. 514. Res gestae: 19 S.C. 353; 68 S.C. 464; 47 S.E., 722; 117 S.C. 44; 108 S.E., 363; 156 S.C. 1; 152 S.E., 753. Mr. W.O. Godwin, for appellants, W.G. Moore, trading as Conway Wholesale Grocery Co. and J. Austin Powell.

  5. Barr v. Lyle

    263 S.C. 426 (S.C. 1975)   Cited 8 times

    nce of a memorandumor memoranda of a contract sufficient to satisfy therequirements of the Statute of Frauds: 259 S.C. 453, 192 S.E.2d 863; 255 S.C. 457, 179 S.E.2d 609; Fed. Rules Civ. Pro., Rule 56 (c), 28 U.S.C.A.; 6 J. Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 56.15 (1), at 2281; 369 U.S. 654, 82 S. Ct. 993, 8 L.Ed.2d 176; 147 F.2d 399; 303 F.2d 425; 311 F.2d 175; 1962 South Carolina Code of Laws, Section 11-101; 12 Corpus Juris Secundum, Brokers, Section 20, p. 63; 20 So.2d 73, 197 Miss. 486; 213 S.W. 912, 141 Tenn. 531; 148 S.E. 554; 259 S.C. 235, 191 S.E.2d 251; 369 U.S. 654, 82 S.Ct. 993, 3 L.Ed.2d 176; 181 F.2d 390, 394; 104 Ark. 459, 148 S.W. 267, Ann. Cas. 1914C 363; 37 App. (D.C.) 258; 2 App. (D.C.) 279; 55 W. Va. 49, 46 S.E. 701, 104 Am. S.R. 977, 2 Ann. Cas. 421; 134 Wis. 277, 114 N.W. 508; 235 S.C. 428, 111 S.E.2d 779; 223 S.C. 39, 74 S.E.2d 42; 12 C.J.S. Brokers, Sec. 20; 2 Am. Jur., Agency, Section 137; 8 Am.Jur., Brokers, Section 61; 86 S.C. 76, 67 S.E. 906; 92 Va. 581, 24 S.E. 258; 139 S.C. 369, 138 S.E. 42, 44; 84 S.C. 197, 65 S.E. 1056; 48 A.L.R. 634, and 43 A.L.R.2d 1014. Messrs. Spencer Spencer, of Rock Hill, for Respondents, cite: As to the Trial Judge's properly granting Defendants-Respondents'motion for summary judgment bydismissing Plaintiff-Appellant's complaint with prejudice: 72 Am. Jur.2d, Statute of Frauds, Sec. 376; 33 S.C. 367, 11 S.E. 1081; Restatement Contracts, Sec. 207, 208; 4 C.J.S. Appeal and Error, Sec. 391; 4 Am. Jur.2d, Appeal and Error, Sec. 278; 4 C.J.S., Appeal and Error, Sec. 398 at page 1344. January 13, 1975.

  6. American Cas. Co. v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co.

    137 S.E.2d 412 (S.C. 1964)   Cited 6 times

    Messrs. Nelson, Mullins, Grier Scarborough, of Columbia, for Appellant, American Casualty Company, and Isadore E. Lourie, of Columbia, and Edward E. Saleeby, of Hartsville, for Appellants, Myra Register and Mrs.Margaret Register, cite: As to the acts of the insuranceagency, in dealing with the Respondent insurance company,making it an agent of the Respondent insurance companywithin the meaning and contemplation of Section 37-233,Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1952: 93 S.C. 406, 76 S.E. 1089; 123 F. Supp. 873; 151 S.C. 44, 148 S.E. 648. As to the insurance agency having no power to securecancellation of the entire policy of insurance: 284 F. 420; 158 Tex. 143, 309 S.W.2d 59; 8 Cal.App. 323, 185 P.2d 832; (La.App.) 167 So. 227; Vol. 1, Restatement of the Law of Agency, p. 127; 2 C.J. 1242; 139 S.C. 369, 138 S.E. 42; 132 S.C. 340, 127 S.E. 562; 3 Am. Jur.2d 482; 132 S.C. 340, 127 S.E. 562; 284 Fed. 803; 17 Ariz. 491, 154 P. 1042, L.R.A. 1918-F, 713. As to Respondent insurance company being estopped fromdenying coverage on the automobile involved in the accident: 44 C.J.S., Insurance, 817-818, Sec. 149; 3 Couch, Insurance, 2309, Sec. 701; 168 S.C. 435, 167 S.E. 684; 124 S.C. 173, 117 S.E. 209; 104 S.C. 403, 89 S.E. 319; 97 S.C. 375, 81 S.C. 654. Messrs. deLoach deLoach, of Camden, for Respondent,Niagara Fire Insurance Company, cite: As to there beingnothing in the Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Actwhich forbids the cancellation of a liability policy by aninsured, and the Assigned Risk Plan recognizes that thismay be done: 29 Am. Jur., Insurance, Sec. 404, p. 752; (Ga.)

  7. Thomas v. Jeffcoat et al

    94 S.E.2d 240 (S.C. 1956)   Cited 10 times

    Edens Woodward, and Glen E. Craig, of Co lumbia,for Appellants, cite: As to contract sued upon beingunenforceable because it was procured by false and fraudulentrepresentations on the part of the seller or his agents: 227 S.C. 298, 87 S.E.2d 871; 218 S.C. 211, 62 S.E.2d 297; 2 Bay 11; 37 C.J.S. 281; 174 Okla. 473, 50 P.2d 680; 37 C.J.S. 282, Secs. 35, 36; 231 Ala. 295, 164 So. 377; 37 C.J.S. 349. As to the evidence making questionsof fact for the jury: 225 S.C. 563, 83 S.E.2d 204; 227 S.C. 334, 88 S.E.2d 72. As to if the contract,being enforceable, then by its terms the seller agreed to payall real estate fees or commission: 223 S.C. 119, 74 S.E.2d 575; 12 C.J.S. 188, Sec. 85 (a), 2 Restatement of the Law of Agency 1040, 1041. J. Carlisle Oxner, Esq., of Columbia, for Respondent, cites: As to the employment of an agent to find purchasersconferring on such agent no authority to bind principal beyondinstruction: 138 S.E. 42, 139 S.C. 369. As to therebeing no jury questions in instant case: 16 S.E. 134, 37 S.C. 417; 79 S.E.2d 368, 224 S.C. 368; 145 F. 312, 75 C.C.A. 192; 50 S.E.2d 202, 213 S.C. 492; 42 S.E.2d 537, 210 S.C. 336; 120 S.E. 64, 126 S.C. 346; 19 S.C. 121. August 27, 1956.

  8. Newton v. Batson

    77 S.E.2d 212 (S.C. 1953)   Cited 21 times

    Messrs. Williams and Henry, of Greenville, for Appellant, cite: As to evidence being insufficient to support any claimof a special property interest: 107 S.C. 132, 92 S.E. 193; 131 S.C. 540, 128 S.E. 724; 143 S.C. 223, 141 S.E. 375; 129 S.C. 89, 123 S.E. 494; 179 S.C. 359, 184 S.E. 89; 80 S.C. 414, 61 S.E. 950; 176 S.C. 178, 179 S.E. 784; 210 S.C. 207, 42 S.E.2d 67; 180 S.C. 436, 186 S.E. 383; 198 S.C. 240, 17 S.E.2d 535; 197 S.C. 393, 15 S.E.2d 646; 186 S.E. 780, 181 S.C. 182. Asto representations of real estate agent being of no probativevalue in absence of evidence of authority: 108 S.C. 56, 93 S.E. 389; 2 C.J.S. 1328-29, Sec. 114; 139 S.C. 369, 138 S.E. 42; 235 N.Y. 448, 139 N.E. 570; 74 S.E.2d 42 (S.C.). As to representations of real estate agent beingviolative of parol evidence rule: 186 S.C. 498, 196 S.E. 177; 172 S.C. 250, 173 S.E. 801; 103 S.C. 494, 88 S.E. 360; 112 S.C. 275, 99 S.E. 814; 107 Va. 576, 59 S.E. 394; 27 Grat. 649; 93 Va. 293, 25 S.E. 232; 105 Va. 269, 54 S.E. 33, 5 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1194; Browne on Parol Ev. 104; 42 Vt. 121, 1 Am. Rep. 313; 24 Ala. 433, 60 Am. Dec. 481; 48 W. Va. 502, 37 S.E. 664; 141 U.S. 510, 12 Sup. Ct. 46, 35 L.Ed. 837; 89 Va. 296, 15 S.E. 497; 86 Va. 346, 10 S.E. 239; 97 Va. 206, 33 S.E. 545; 44 N.J. Law, 331, 43 Am. Rep. 380. As to use made of lot byneighbors, shape of lot, smallness of lot, or similar attributesnot taking place of lack of original dedication or grant ofeasement: 111 Ga. 847, 36 S.E. 461; 2 C.J.S. 121, Sec. 97; 102 S.C. 361, 86 S.E. 771; 124 S.C. 274, 117 S.E. 529; 89 S.C. 440, 71 S.E. 1025; 217 S.C. 500, 61 S.E.2d 58; 66 C.J.S. 645; 2 McCord 243. As to dedicationnot being establish

  9. Anderson v. Redmon et al

    48 S.E.2d 591 (S.C. 1948)   Cited 3 times

    Messrs. C.T. Graydon and J. Bratton Davis, of Columbia, for Appellants, cite: As to error on the part of thetrial judge in decreeing specific performance under the contractand the assignment thereof: C.J., Assignments, 1155, Sec. 99; 215 Iowa 777, 246 N.W. 790; 55 Am. Jur., Ven. Pur., 975, Sec. 581; 12 Am. Jur., Contracts, Secs. 330, 382; (Ark.) 74 S.W.2d 232; 5 C.J. 963, note 27; 143 Iowa 517, 121 N.W. 1009, 32 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1; 150 S.C. 493, 148 S.E. 554; 167 Mich. 464, 133 N.W. 317, 36 L.R.A. (N.S.) 890. As to a real estatebroker being a special agent of the seller with special powersonly: 139 S.C. 369, 138 S.E. 42; 155 S.C. 488, 152 S.E. 644; 23 S.D. 380, 121 N.W. 862; 59 Colo. 376, 149 P. 253, Ann. Cas. 1917-A 520. As to power of dispositionof property being inherent in owner and, ipso facto,a co-owner: 100 S.C. 341, 84 S.E. 878; 105 S.C. 496, 90 S.E. 177; 206 S.C. 11, 32 S.E.2d 889. As to itbeing a fundamental principle of due process that the rightsof a person may not be adjudicated in a proceeding to whichhe is not a party: 172 Cal. 572, 158 P. 218; 52 Colo. 601, 123 P. 821; 56 Oh. St. 575, 47 N.E. 551, 60 Am. S.R. 756, L.R.A. 519; 161 Miss. 282, 133 So. 232; 149 N.C. 394, 63 S.E. 79; 115 Va. 779, 80 S.E. 576, Ann. Cas. 1915-C, 1034. As to specific performance will not be decreedwhere such would place co-tenant in an inequitable,unjust and unexpected position: 16 Mich. 223; 209 Iowa 714, 229 N.W. 199; 73 App. D.C. 322, 121 F.2d 70; 83 Cal. 521, 23 P. 695; 63 Fla. 564, 59 So. 138; 99 N.J. Eq. 198, 132 A. 305; 307 Ill. 32, 138 N.E. 226; (Tex.Civ.App.) 168 S.W.2d 873; 161 U.S. 350, 40 L.Ed. 7

  10. City of Greenville v. Washington American League Baseball Club

    205 S.C. 495 (S.C. 1945)   Cited 52 times

    The Master's Report, finding for Plaintiff, was affirmed by Order of the County Judge. From this Order and the judgment entered thereon, the Defendants appeal. Mr. J. LaRue Hinson and Mr. E.M. Blythe, both of Greenville, S.C. Counsel for Appellants, cite: As to "Fixtures": (1829), 2 Pet., 137, 7 L.Ed., 374 at p. 379; Id. 378; (1829), 142 U.S. 396, 35 L.E., 1055; 36 C.J.S., pp. 969, 970 and 973; 107 A.L.R., 1154, 1158, 1160, 22 A.J., 759; 17 S.C.L., 540; 44 S.C.L., 138; 15 S.C. 67; 33 S.C. 339, 344, 11 S.E., 1065; 51 S.C. 129, 28 S.E., 2; 95 S.C. 221, 228, 78 S.E., 960; 132 S.C. 16, 128 S.E., 876. As to Parol Testimony: 201 S.C. 24, 21 S.E.2d 202; 17 S.C. 514; 44 S.C. 81, 21 S.E., 193 S.C. 299, 8 S.E.2d 511; 195 S.C. 340, 11 S.E.2d 381; 86 S.C. 76, 79, 67 S.E., 906; 139 S.C. 369, 376, 138 S.E., 42; 150 S.C. 493, 516, 148 S.E., 554; 117 S.C. 60, 64, 108 S.E., 295; 141 S.C. 524 at 543, 140 S.E., 207; 32 C.J.S., 887; 122 S.C. 140 at 149, 115 S.E., 207; 32 C.J.S. 889; 97 S.C. 278; 174 S.C. 97, 107, 177 S.E., 29; 175 S.C. 436, 178 S.E., 494; 127 S.C. 225, 120 S.E., 834; 85 S.C. 486; 129 S.C. 503, 124 S.E., 772; 115 S.C. 426, 106 S.E., 157; 150 S.C. 190, 148 S.E., 549; 42 S.C. 272, 291; 84 S.C. 254, 256; 106 S.C. 467, 471, 91 S.E., 733; 131 S.C. 175, 187, 126 S.E., 525. As to Admission of Parol Testimonyagainst Assignee of Original Lease: 32 C.J.S., 796. Mr. A.C. Mann, of Greenville, S.C. Counsel for Respondent, cites: As to Parol Testimony: 144 S.C. 218, 142 S.E., 504; 155 S.C. 315, 152 S.E., 522; (N.C.), 120 S.E., 64; 127 S.C. 225, 120 S.E., 834; 85 S.C. 486; 129 S.C. 503, 124 S.E., 72; (Tex.Civ.App.), 254 S.W., 394; 150 S.C. 492, 148 S.E., 549; 110 S.C. 290, 96 S.E., 404; 41 S.C. 153, 19 S.E., 310; 65 S.C. 134, 43 S.E., 393; 26 S.C. 312, 2 S.E., 565. As to AssigneeO