Inman & Co. v. Hodges
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Dantzler, J., Marlboro, November, 1907. Action by Inman & Co. against P. A. Hodges. From order refusing motion to discontinue, plaintiffs appeal.
Read the full summary
Before Dantzler, J., Marlboro, November, 1907. Action by Inman & Co. against P. A. Hodges. From order refusing motion to discontinue, plaintiffs appeal. Mr. LeGrande cites: A plaintiff has the right to discontinue his action as a matter of law: 1 Bail., 362. When right to discontinue is within discretion of Court: 37 S. C., 122. Filing a plea of set-off in no zvise impairs plaintiff’s right to a discontinuance: 25 Ency., 499; 15 Ark., 148; 5 Fla., 196; 8B. Mon., 285; 30 Me., 27; 11 Mass., 206; 2 Wend., 295; 7 Watts., 296; 2 Brev., 32; 1 Bail., 362. cite: Discontinuance is within discretion of…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Gary.
The question involved in this appeal is, whether his Honor, the Circuit Judge, erred in refusing the plaintiffs’ motion for an order allowing them to discontinue their action.
The plaintiffs, J. Walter Inman and James F. McGowan, are partners in trade, with their principal place of business in Augusta, Ga., and a branch office in Charleston, S. C., under the management of their agent, John F. Maybanks, who entered into an agreement with the defendant to buy cotton for them during the year 1902.
The plaintiffs commenced this action in…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Kentucky Refining Co. v. Saluda Oil Mill Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1904
- Forrest v. City CouncilSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1903
- Latimer v. SullivanSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1892
3Cited by4 opinions
- Ex Parte HartwellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1939
- Barr v. WitsellSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1934
- O'Neill Bros. v. CrowleyDistrict Court, W.D. South Carolina · 1938
- C & G Construction Co. v. WrightSuperior Court of Delaware · 1976