Meinhard Bros. v. Youngblood
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Witherspoon, J., Abbeville, June, 1891. This is a branch of the case next supra. The two defendants, who had procured the attachments, answered separately, but both answered, “not waiving any objection to the jurisdiction of the court, or to any other matter whatever, but expressly protesting against any exercise of jurisdiction by the court in this case.” At the trial these defendants demanded proof of the service upon them.
Read the full summary
Before Witherspoon, J., Abbeville, June, 1891. This is a branch of the case next supra. The two defendants, who had procured the attachments, answered separately, but both answered, “not waiving any objection to the jurisdiction of the court, or to any other matter whatever, but expressly protesting against any exercise of jurisdiction by the court in this case.” At the trial these defendants demanded proof of the service upon them. This being refused, they then moved to set aside the service, upon the grounds that the affidavit for publication did not show a cause of action against them, and…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Pore.
This is an appeal from the order of Judge Witherspoon, who heard the cause at Abbeville in the Court of Common Pleas, at the June term, 1891, of said court, dismissing the complaint because it failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The respondents having made a motion to set aside the proof of service upon them by publication, and this motion having been refused, the respondents give notice that they will in this court use this error of the Circuit Judge in fortifying his dismissal; on the ground, in other…
Also in this document: Per curiam.
2Cited by3 opinions
- First Carolinas Joint Stock Land Bank v. KnottsSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1939
- Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. HunterSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1909
- Glaser v. First National BankSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1896