Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Blassingame v. Greenville County

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided February 19, 1929No. 12597PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Cothran.

I do not concur in the affirmance of the circuit decree as proposed in the opinion of Mr. Justice Carter for the reasons which follow.

The complaint contains two separately stated causes of action, based upon practically the same right, to1 have a certain contract entered into between the plaintiff and Green-ville County, for the construction of what is known as the Geer highway, rescinded, and that he be allowed compensation for the work done by him upon the basis of quantummeruit, which he fixes at $68,620.69.

It appears that in the…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. United States v. GleasonSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
  2. Columbus Railway, Power & Light Co. v. City of ColumbusSupreme Court of the United States · 1919
  3. The Kronprinzessin CecilieSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
  4. Day v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
  5. Carnegie Steel Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1916

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. City of Austin v. CottenTexas Supreme Court · 1974
  2. L-J, Inc. v. South Carolina State Highway DepartmentSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1978
  3. Mitchum v. MitchumSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1937
  4. Wilson v. WilsonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1929
  5. L-J, Inc. v. South Carolina State Highway DepartmentSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1978

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

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API