Legal Opinion · Dissent

McCown-clark Co. v. Muldrow

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided April 13, 1921No. 10609Published

Before PfuriFoy, J., Florence, April term, 1919.' Action by McCown-Clarke Company against A. W. Muldrow. From judgment for plaintiff the defendant appeals. cite: Rule for estimating damages caused by breach of contract: Ann- Cas. 1917 B. 1192. Sutherland on Damages, Vol. 2, 2339, 2348; .56 Am. Rep. 52 (Ala.;) 37 Am. St. Rep. 611 (N. C.;) 159 N. C. 439; 27 Am. Rep. 13 (N. Y.;) 13 Am. Rep. 438; 20 Am. Rep. 425; 40 Am. Rep. 280 (Texas;) 42 Am. St. Rep. 125 (Cal.;) 92 Am.

Read the full summary

1Dissent

Mr. Justice Cothran,

(dissenting:) I do not concur iii the conclusion of a majority of the Court in the disposition of this appeal, and think that the judgment of this Court should be as indicated at the foot of this opinion.

This being an appeal from a judgment entered upon a verdict in favor of the plaintiff by direction of the Circuit Judge, the evidence, and all reasonable inferences therefrom, will be interpreted most strongly in favor of the defendant.

The following conclusions of fact may therefore, for the purposes of this appeal, under the above rule, be drawn from the evidence, it…

2Cases cited10 opinions

Bell v. ReynoldsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1885
Gadsden v. Home Fertilizer & Chemical Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1911
Wilson v. . ScarboroSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
Matheson v. Southern Ry.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1908
Towles Arnett v. Railroad Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1909

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.