Jones v. Spartanburg Herald Co.
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Fraser, J., Spartanburg, July, 1894. Action by W. M. Jones against the Spartanburg Herald Company, commenced in December, 1893. The complaint was as follows: The plaintiff, complaining of the defendant in the above case, alleges: 1. That the defendant is a corporation, duly chartered under the laws of this State by an act of the General Assembly, entitled “An act to incorporate the Spartanburg Herald Company,” approved December 26, A. D. 1884. 2. That the said…
Read the full summary
Before Fraser, J., Spartanburg, July, 1894. Action by W. M. Jones against the Spartanburg Herald Company, commenced in December, 1893. The complaint was as follows: The plaintiff, complaining of the defendant in the above case, alleges: 1. That the defendant is a corporation, duly chartered under the laws of this State by an act of the General Assembly, entitled “An act to incorporate the Spartanburg Herald Company,” approved December 26, A. D. 1884. 2. That the said defendant rented from plaintiff in December, Í891, an office in the city of Spartanburg, S. C., for the sum of $150 per annum,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Gary.
The question raised by the appeal in this case will be understood by referring to the complaint, answer, the presiding judge’s charge to the jury, and appellant’s exceptions, which will be incorporated in the report of the case.
1 The first exception complains of error on the part of the presiding judge in charging the jury that it was immaterial whether the defendant corporation bad gone out of business or not. The appellant’s attorneys do not discuss this exception in their argumént before this court. The proposition is too plain to…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Sherwood v. Home Savings BankSupreme Court of Iowa · 1906
- McNulty v. WindhamSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1937