Rush v. Aiken Mfg. Co.
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Townsfnd, J., Aiken, Action by Mary Rush and Nathaniel Rush against Aiken Manufacturing Co. and William Birmingham. Prom judgment on verdict for plaintiff, defendants appeal on following exceptions: ist.
Read the full summary
Before Townsfnd, J., Aiken, Action by Mary Rush and Nathaniel Rush against Aiken Manufacturing Co. and William Birmingham. Prom judgment on verdict for plaintiff, defendants appeal on following exceptions: ist. That his Honor erred, it is respectfully submitted, in charging the jury, that even if they found that the tenancy of the plaintiff had ended, and they had left the premises and gone away and left it locked, yet if they had the key of the premises, the defendant as owner and landlord would have no right to enter the premises by using force to do so, or could not enter at all, in that…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Gary.
The first paragraph of the complaint herein alleges the corporate existence of the defendant, its ownership, control and operation of a large cotton, factory-in the town of Bath; also its ownership of other real estate in said town, consisting of a large number of tenement houses, which are rented to the operatives who work in said cotton mill. The second paragraph alleges that Mary Rush was the owner of the personal property hereinafter mentioned, and that she and her husband were in lawful possession of one of the tenement houses,…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Galloway v. General Motors Acceptance CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1939
- Laurens Telephone Co. v. Enterprise BankSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1911
- Barbee v. Winnsboro Granite Corp.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1939
- Colonial Oil Co. v. American Oil Co.District Court, E.D. South Carolina · 1942
- State v. ChristensenSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1940