Dantzler v. Cox & Dantzler
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Aldrich, J., Darlington, November Term1, 1904. Action- by D-. K. Dantzler against E. R. Cbx, A. L. Dantzler, J. E. No-rment, H. D. Norment and Dora N. Nettles, partners under firm name of Cox & Dantzler.
Read the full summary
Before Aldrich, J., Darlington, November Term1, 1904. Action- by D-. K. Dantzler against E. R. Cbx, A. L. Dantzler, J. E. No-rment, H. D. Norment and Dora N. Nettles, partners under firm name of Cox & Dantzler. From judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals on following exceptions- : “I. Because the Circuit Judge -erred in1 admitting the testimony' of the defendant, A. D. Dantzler, in regard to the amount of -money that he invested in the business- of the firm of the defendants, Cox & Dantzler, said testimony being entirely, irrelevant to any issue raised by the pleadings, because it is…
1Opinion of the Court
October 30, 1906. The opinion of the Court was delivered by This is an action upon two promissory notes, alleged to have been executed by the defendants under their firm name, in favor of the plaintiff.
The defendants denied the allegations of the complaint, except the fact of partnership, and set up as a defense, "that at the time of the alleged execution of the notes in suit, the defendant, A.L. Dantzler, was without authority to borrow money in the firm name, and if he did borrow money from the plaintiff, and execute to him the notes in suit, it was for his own private benefit and use, and…
2Cited by15 opinions
- Lundy v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1911
- Cope v. Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1926
- Clark v. Southeastern Life Ins.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1915
- Rhodes v. Granby Cotton MillsSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1910
- State v. BoylestonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1910
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.