Legal Opinion
Medders v. Medders
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
Decided April 17, 1979No. 7810SC491PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ERWIN, Judge.
Defendant’s Appeal
The validity, effect, and construction of the agreement before us is governed by the law of South Carolina. 24 Am. Jur. 2d, Divorce and Separation, § 884, p. 1004.
Under the law of South Carolina, it is the court’s duty to effect the intention of the parties in construing a contract to the end that justice may be done. Rainwater v. Hobeika, 208 S.C. 433, 38 S.E. 2d 495 (1946).
Defendant contends the trial court erred in finding Section 9 of the agreement valid and enforceable. We find no error.
The provision in question provided for the payment of $700.00 monthly,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Childs v. City of ColumbiaSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1911
- Rainwater v. HobiekaSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1946
- Helsby v. St. Paul Hospital and Casualty CompanyDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1961
- St. Paul Hospital and Casualty Company and Mutual Benefit Health and Accident Association v. Walter HelsbyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1962
- Herndon v. WardlawSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1915
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- In Re the Estate of MillerSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1982
- Behr v. BehrCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980
- Vestal v. VestalCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980
- Hyde v. Comm'rUnited States Tax Court · 1981
- In Re the Estate of MillerSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1982