Hankinson v. Hankinson
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Refore Gary, J., Aiken, July, 1900. Action for damages by Frank H. Hankinson against Luther H. Hankinson. The following is the Circuit decree: “The amended complaint upon which this case was heard by me was omitted from the record furnished me by the attorneys in the cause; as a consequence I have some difficulty in stating the issues made by the pleadings.
Read the full summary
Refore Gary, J., Aiken, July, 1900. Action for damages by Frank H. Hankinson against Luther H. Hankinson. The following is the Circuit decree: “The amended complaint upon which this case was heard by me was omitted from the record furnished me by the attorneys in the cause; as a consequence I have some difficulty in stating the issues made by the pleadings. “The action is for damages, alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff, under the following circumstances: On the ioth day of February, 1897, Preston Tutson rented a certain farm from the plaintiff, Frank H. Hankinson, for which he…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Pope. To understand the questions presented by this appeal, a brief recital of the facts upon which the action is bottomed should be made. It seems that on the 10th day of February, 1897, one Preston Tutson was indebted to the plaintiff, Frank H. Hankinson, in and for the sum of $266.06, and on the same day, in order to secure the payment of said sum on or before the 15th day of October, 1897, the said Preston Tutson executed a chattel mortgage wherein he pledged to said plaintiff, Frank H. Hankinson, the following goods, chattels, crops…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Gaud v. WalkerSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1949
- Hamilton v. BlantonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1917