Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance v. Law

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided February 22, 1929No. 12601PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Blease.

The petitioner seeks, and the respondents resist, in the original jurisdiction of this Court, a writ of mandamus, to compel the respondents, constituting the board of commissioners of Spartanburg County, to require Paul M. Murph, county treasurer of that county, to execute a new bond, as required by the provisions of Section 747, Volume 3, Code of 1922, thereby relieving the petitioner from further liability as surety of the said county treasurer.

The admitted facts are as follows: Petitioner, a Massachusetts corporation, properly…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Chicago Lumber Co. v. DouglasSupreme Court of Kansas · 1913
  2. Crescent Manufacturing Co. v. S. C. Tax CommissionSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1924
  3. Hull v. Massachusetts Bonding & InsuranceSupreme Court of Kansas · 1912
  4. John Church Co. v. Ætna Indemnity Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1913
  5. State v. Columbia Ry., Gas & Electric Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1919

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Inabinet v. Royal Exchange Assurance of LondonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1932
  2. Greenville Airport Commission v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1955
  3. C.C. Pearce Co. v. American Surety Co. of N.Y.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1934
  4. Ayres v. CrowleySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1944
  5. Bessinger v. National Surety Corp.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1945

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API