Legal Opinion

Prince v. Mathews

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided April 2, 1931No. 13109PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Cothran.

It is gathered from the statement contained in the transcript that the complaint, which is not set forth, contains two separate and distinct causes of action which should not have been united:

1. The foreclosure of a mortgage given by the defendant, Mathews, to Henrietta Stockman, daughter of H. J. Stock-man, now deceased, on January 3, 1925, to secure the payment of a note for $2,500, due five years after date, with interest at 7 per cent, per annum, payable annually, and with a provision accelerating the maturity of the debt upon…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. President of the Bank of the United States v. OwensSupreme Court of the United States · 1829
  2. State v. Burnett.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
  3. Smith v. DuBoseSupreme Court of Georgia · 1887
  4. Gordon v. Gordon's AdministratorCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1916
  5. Rountree v. IngleSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1913

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Dannells v. United States National BankOregon Supreme Court · 1943
  2. Carolina Housing & Mortgage Corp. v. Orange Hill A. M. E. ChurchSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1957
  3. Greenwood Cotton Mill v. PaceSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1934

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

Powered by the Exa API