Lee v. Unkefer
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Action by J. M. Lee against J. G. Unkefer, Edward J. Mcllwain and Sam’l B. Goucher. Erom judgment for plaintiff, defendant, Unkefer, appeals.
Read the full summary
Action by J. M. Lee against J. G. Unkefer, Edward J. Mcllwain and Sam’l B. Goucher. Erom judgment for plaintiff, defendant, Unkefer, appeals. No argument furnished Reporter. cite: The agreement of defendants here does not come zvithin statute of frauds: 3 Strob., 177, 307; 39 S. C., 14; 1 Rich., 113. Evidence of plaintiff as to the contract did not contradict or vary any written agreement: 61 S. C., 169; 73 S. C., 364; 65 S. C., 134. What note the agreement referred to was for the jury: 63 S. C., 567. And whether such agreement was ever made was for them: 55 S. C., 174; 66 S. C., 483; 76 S.…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Gary.
This is an action to recover the balance alleged to be due on a promissory note.
The questions presented by the exceptions render necessary reference to the complaint, the allegations of which are substantially as follows: That the defendants were partners doing business, as plaintiff is informed and believes, under the firm name of Mcllwain, Unkefer Company. That on or about the day of 1900, the plaintiff herein, being then the owner of a- note dated the 19th of December, 1895, for $7,500.00, due on or before the first of January,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Ashe v. Car. & N. W. Ry. Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1903
- Ellis & Co. v. CarrollSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1904
3Cited by2 opinions
- Mitchell v. AllenSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1908
- Wilkie v. MurphySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1911