State v. Elmore
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Buchanan, J., Spartanburg, 1903. Indictment against Alfred Elmore. From sentence, defendant appeals. The contract on which the indictment was based is as follows': “State of South Carolina, county of Spartanburg.
Read the full summary
Before Buchanan, J., Spartanburg, 1903. Indictment against Alfred Elmore. From sentence, defendant appeals. The contract on which the indictment was based is as follows': “State of South Carolina, county of Spartanburg. This indenture, made this 7th day of October, A. D. 1901, between E. E. McEemore and Alfred Elmore; witnesseth that Alfred Elmore is to labor on the land of L. E. McEemore for the year 1901, and fi> cultivate all of the land on the John Johnson plantation from the new fence to the line except three acres on the northwest of plantation above the road. Said land situate in said…
1ConcurrenceJustice Woods
1 3 I concur in the result. The written contract, which will be printed in the report of the case, did not create the relation of landlord and tenant. McCutchen v. Crenshaw, 40 S. C., 511, 19 S. E., 140; McLemore, therefore, had no statutory lien to assign, and the defendant could not be convicted of disposing of crops under a lien which did not exist. I think the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh exceptions should be sustained, on this ground as well as on the reasoning of the Chief Justice.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- McCutchen v. CrenshawSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1894