Fishburne v. Minott
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before DantzeER, J., Charleston, September, 1904. Action, by Julian Fishburne against Harriott K.- Minott, Mary E. Eowndes, H. A. M. Smith, G. H. Sass, Master, and his sureties.
Read the full summary
Before DantzeER, J., Charleston, September, 1904. Action, by Julian Fishburne against Harriott K.- Minott, Mary E. Eowndes, H. A. M. Smith, G. H. Sass, Master, and his sureties. From, order extending time of defendants to answer, plaintiff appeals. cites: As to notice: Code of Proc., 402, sub. 2. Should not be granted at chambers: Code of Proc., 405. Appearance of attorney is presumed to be for party: Sanders v. Price, 56 S. C.; Code of Proc., 160; 61 S'. C., 312; 46 S. C., 15. Judge at chambers cannot extend time toanswer except under Rule XIX.: Rennéker v. Warren, 20 S. C. cite: Notice of…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Jones.
These are two separate appeals from separate orders of Judge Dantzler granted in the above stated case, both dated September 22, 1904 — one granting defendants, Julian Mitchell and Henry A. M. Smith, additional time in which to answer or demur or take other proceedings, the other granting the same right to- the defendants, Harriott K. Minott and Mary El Lowndes. The summons and complaint were personally served on Harriott K. Minott and Mary E. Lowndes on the 9th day of September, 1904, and copies of the summons and complaint were sent…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Hamilton v. HamerSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1914