Rentz v. Crosby
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before SeasE, J., Jasper, Spring term, 1916. Controversy without action. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Read the full summary
Before SeasE, J., Jasper, Spring term, 1916. Controversy without action. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. The following statement appears in the record: “This was an action for claim and delivery of personal property, to wit: One mouse colored horse mule named Pete (all other property mentioned in the complaint and in the mortgage being either dead or released). The following is a copy of the note and mortgage under which the plaintiff claims possession: $250. Islandtown, S. C., 4-28-1914. On the 1st day of October next I promise to pay to the order of H. H. Rentz two hundred…
1Opinion of the Court
January 7, 1918. The opinion of the Court was delivered by Crosby was and is debtor to Rentz, and to secure payment of the debt Crosby gave to Rentz a mortgage on a horse and mule. There were other subjects in the mortgage than those, but for simplicity we restrict the statement to a horse and a mule. The mortgage fell due; Rentz converted the horse and now sues for the mule. After two ineffective trials before juries, the cause was submitted to the Circuit Court as a controversy without action. Let the "case" be reported.
The only issue of law is, How much credit on the debt in money must…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Lamar v. CroftSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1906
- National Exchange Bank v. HolmanSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1889
- Green v. ScruggsSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1906
- State ex rel. Kendall v. County CommissionersSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1888
- Trimmier v. ViseSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1882
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. HanahanSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1928
- Fowler v. GoldsmithSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1925
- Peterson v. WolffNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1938
- General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. HanahanSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1928