Guckenheimer v. Dryfus
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Izlar, J., Barnwell, February, 1894. Motions by defendants to vacate attachments in the case of Simon Guckenheimer, Abe S. Guckenheimer, and Moses Guckenheimer, partners, as S. Guckenheimer & Sons, against Benjamin H. Dryfus and J. M. Rich, partners, as Dryfus & Rich, and I. Rich, and in the case of Adolph D. Benheim, Meyer Benheim, and Henry Benheim, partners, as Benheim Bros. & Co., commenced in September, 1893.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Pope.
These two separate actions, involving-identical issues, have, by the consent of all the parties in each cause, been heard here together. It is admitted that S. Guekenheimer & Sons are a firm, located and doing business as merchants in the city of Savannah, in the State of Georgia, while Benheim Bros. & Go. are a firm, located and doing business as merchants in the city of New York, in the State of New York. The defendants, Dryfus & Rich, are a firm, located and doing business as merchants in the city of Savannah, in the State of…
2Cited by2 opinions
- State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. v. BonacciCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1940
- McDaniel v. PattersonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1931