Tinsley v. Union County
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Fbaseb, J., Union, March, 1892. This was a claim presented by Ira E. Tinsley and R. S. Foster against the County of Union. The decree of the Circuit Court was as follows: On September 14, 1889, plaintiffs presented a claim against the county to the board for $99.95, which was marked the same day, “Rejected, the contract not complied with.” From this judgment there was no appeal.
Read the full summary
Before Fbaseb, J., Union, March, 1892. This was a claim presented by Ira E. Tinsley and R. S. Foster against the County of Union. The decree of the Circuit Court was as follows: On September 14, 1889, plaintiffs presented a claim against the county to the board for $99.95, which was marked the same day, “Rejected, the contract not complied with.” From this judgment there was no appeal. On the 20th September, 1889, plaintiffs brought an action in the common pleas for the same account. In the same month or the next, this action was discontinued. On the 7th October, 1889, the same account was…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Mr. Justice McGowan.
There is some confusion in this case, and it will be necessary to make a short statement of facts. The action or proceeding is upon a claim for $100 against the County of Union, for work and labor alleged to have been done by the plaintiffs on a certain highway of the county, under a contract with the county commissioners. It appears, among other things, that on September 14, 1889, the plaintiffs presented to the board of county commissioners the claim of $100 “for work and labor on a highway, near Supple Jack,” which was considered…
2Cited by4 opinions
- In Re Solomons' EstateSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1906
- State Ex Rel. People's Bank v. GoodwinSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1908
- Prosser v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1949
- Thomas v. Atlantic Coast Line Ry. Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1933