Roberts & Hoge v. Pipkin & McCallum
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Buchanan, J., Marlboro, November, 1901. Two actions: (1) Roberts & Hoge v. Pipkin & McCallum, Marlboro Wholesale Grocery, Bank of McCoIl and Bank of Marlboro. (2) Hugh B. McIntyre, assignee, v. Marlboro Wholesale Grocery Company, Roberts & Hoge and Bank of McColl.
Read the full summary
Before Buchanan, J., Marlboro, November, 1901. Two actions: (1) Roberts & Hoge v. Pipkin & McCallum, Marlboro Wholesale Grocery, Bank of McCoIl and Bank of Marlboro. (2) Hugh B. McIntyre, assignee, v. Marlboro Wholesale Grocery Company, Roberts & Hoge and Bank of McColl. From orders below, both plaintiffs and Marlboro Wholesale Grocery Co. appeal on following exceptions: Marlboro' Wholesale Grocery Co. as follows : “I. Because his Honor erred in holding that the complaint in the case first above stated was sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to the appointment of a receiver of the goods and…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Pope.
In general terms, the first action above stated may be said to have raised questions: (1) As to the effect of the mortgage executed on the 17th August, 1901, by and between the defendants, Pipkin & McCallum, and the Marlboro Wholesale Grocery Company, two firms doing business at Bennettsville, in Marlboro County, in this State, and of the mortgages executed by Pipkin & McCallum to the Bank of McColl on the 31st March, 1899, and another between the same parties dated in January, 1901, but not recorded until the 17th September, 1901. The…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Truesdell v. JohnsonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1928
- Vasiliades v. VasiliadesSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1957
- Southern Railway Co. v. DaySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1926