Bulwinkle & Co. v. Cramer & Blohme
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Norton, J., Charleston, June, 1888. The opinion fully states the case. cited 18 Stat., 373; 5 Biss., 102; 1 Crunch C. C., 523, 451; 2 Id., 195, 235; 15 Wall., 161; 4 Wash. 0. 0., 219; Hemp., 689 ; 1 Peters, 351; 4 McLean, 240; 7 How., 693; 5 Peters, 617. cited 2 Branch C. 0., 31, 198, 259, 335; 7 Fed. Rep., 49.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Mr. Chiee Justice Simpson.
The question presented for our consideration in the appeal in this case is, whether the Cir*154cuit Judge erred in permitting the deposition of one P. B. Reed, taken in behalf of the defendants de bene esse, to' be read as evidence in the case.
The plaintiff objected to the reading of this testimony on the following grounds: First. Because it did not appear from the certificate of the officer who took the deposition that it was taken in conformity with all the regulations of the “act to provide for the taking of depositions de bene…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Walsh v. RogersSupreme Court of the United States · 1852
3Cited by2 opinions
- Crosby v. Seaboard Air Line Ry.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1908
- Wallingford v. West. Union Tel. Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1901