McAuley v. Orr.
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before W. A. Holman, special Judge, Action by Francis M. McAuley and others against A. E. Orr and others. From an order granting plaintiff’s motion to amend, and denying defendant’s motion to dismiss for • want of prosecution and laches-, defendants appeal.
Read the full summary
Before W. A. Holman, special Judge, Action by Francis M. McAuley and others against A. E. Orr and others. From an order granting plaintiff’s motion to amend, and denying defendant’s motion to dismiss for • want of prosecution and laches-, defendants appeal. The order appealed from was as follows-: The plaintiffs, made a motion before the Court at York-ville, during the term held in July, 1913, to mend their complaint, and for leave to- serve a supplemental complaint; the defendants resisted the relief demanded, on the ground o-f long delay and unreasonable neglect on the p-art of the…
1DissentJustice Hydrick
As briefly as possible I propose to state the reasons why I think the order of the . Circuit Court should be affirmed. As the action is dismissed for laches in the prosecution thereof after it was commenced, the delay, the facts and circumstances causing it, and the consequences of it should all be kept clearly in mind. Therefore, it is necessary to state the history of the case. It is an action to recover real estate and the rents and profits thereof, commenced on March 4, 1889, by W. E. Dickey, D. D. Chambers, and Marietta Cornwell, as plaintiffs, against A. E. Orr, William A. Orr, Hartwell…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Bornsdorff v. LordNew York Supreme Court · 1863
- Sims v. DavisSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1904
- Bryce v. MasseySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1892