Legal Opinion
Wolfe v. Herlihy
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Decided October 27, 1950No. 16421PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
218 S.C. 90 (1950)
61 S.E.2d 764
WOLFE ET AL.
v.
HERLIHY ET AL.
16421
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
October 27, 1950.
Messrs. C.E. Summers, and Moss & Moss, of Orangeburg, for Appellants.
Messrs. Felder, Rosen & Horger, of Orangeburg, for Respondents.
The following is the order of Judge Brailsford in the court below:
The questions before me arise on Exceptions by the plaintiffs to the Report of Honorable John S. Bowman, County Judge as Special Referee, dated December 6, 1949.
The complaint sets forth two causes of action, the first for actual and punitive damages for the alleged conversion of…
Also in this document: Per curiam.
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Trustees v. JenningsSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1893
- Few v. KellerSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1902
- Ross Tin Mine v. Cherokee Tin Mining Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1916
- Wolfe v. HerlihySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1950
3Cited by4 opinions
- White v. LivingstonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1957
- Litchfield Co. of South Carolina, Inc. v. KiriakidesCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1986
- Crown Central Petroleum Corporation v. Port Oil Co. (Formerly Hewitt Oil Marketing Co.)Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1962
- Litchfield Co. of South Carolina, Inc. v. KiriakidesCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1986