Brown v. Rogers
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Gary, J., Florence, Action by M. M. Brown against S. D. Rogers and J. F. Stackley. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant, Rogers, appeals. cite: First report is merged into second, and tiling exceptions within ten days from, notice of Ming of second is sufficient: 43 S. C., 103; 1 DeS.
Read the full summary
Before Gary, J., Florence, Action by M. M. Brown against S. D. Rogers and J. F. Stackley. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant, Rogers, appeals. cite: First report is merged into second, and tiling exceptions within ten days from, notice of Ming of second is sufficient: 43 S. C., 103; 1 DeS. Eq., 350'; 46 S. C., 499. In this case formal exceptions within ten days is not required: Code of Proc., 293, subs. 2, 294; 20 S'. C., 295; 12 S. C., 54; 11 S. C., 445; 67 S. C., 211; 50 S. C.; 405; 3 DeS., 584; 1 Hill Ch., 185. Court should have considered .appellant’s motion to he permitted to Me…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Woods.
This action was brought by the plaintiff, M. M. Brown, to obtain an accounting for the assets of a business partnership of which he and the defendant, S. D. Rogers, were members. The cause ivas referred to a referee “to take and state an account between the several parties to this action.” On March 6, 1903, the referee filed a report, showing a balance due by the defendant, Rogers, to the plaintiff of $2,137.13, without interest, the question of interest being specifically mentioned as one to be thereafter decided by the Court. On…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Exchange Bank v. McMillanSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1907
- Roberts v. DraytonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1922
- Odom v. NewtonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1908