Claflin & Co. v. Iseman
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Wallace, J., Marion, June, 1884. The opinion states the case. The order of Judge Hudson, granting an interlocutory injunction, omitting its statement of the case, was as follows: Under a rule to show cause, the application for a preliminary injunction was heard by me at chambers at Orangeburg, on the 16th day of May instant.
Read the full summary
Before Wallace, J., Marion, June, 1884. The opinion states the case. The order of Judge Hudson, granting an interlocutory injunction, omitting its statement of the case, was as follows: Under a rule to show cause, the application for a preliminary injunction was heard by me at chambers at Orangeburg, on the 16th day of May instant. The arguments for and against the application were very full and exhaustive, leaving nothing for me to do but to review some of the leading authorities relied on by the opposing counsel. This I have endeavored carefully to do before determining the motion, not…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Mr. Justice McG-owan.
Manuel Iseman, merchant, of Marion, S. C., became embarrassed, and on January 29, 1884, executed an assignment of all his property, real and personal, to Junius H. Evans, Esq., for the benefit of his creditors, upon the following trusts: First, to pay all the expenses necessarily incident to the execution of the trusts therein imposed; second, to pay all his creditors in equal proportions, that is, pro rata, if the amount in his hands should not he sufficient to pay those in full who should come in and signify thoir acceptance…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Beck v. BurdettNew York Court of Chancery · 1829
- Mackie v. CairnsCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1825
- Murray v. RiggsCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1818
- Austin v. BellNew York Supreme Court · 1823
3Cited by1 opinion
- Forbes v. BowmanSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1911