Legal Opinion

National City Bank v. Huey & Martin Drug Co.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided January 26, 1920No. 10336PublishedCited by 10 opinions

Action 'by the National City Bank against the Huey & Martin Drug Company and the Calhoun Drug Company, based on indebtedness of the Huey & Martin Company to plaintiff and sale by that company to the Calhoun Company without compliance with the Bulk Sales Daw. Verdict for plaintiff for $689.12 was directed against both defendants, and from a judgment entered thereon the defendants appeal.

Read the full summary

Action 'by the National City Bank against the Huey & Martin Drug Company and the Calhoun Drug Company, based on indebtedness of the Huey & Martin Company to plaintiff and sale by that company to the Calhoun Company without compliance with the Bulk Sales Daw. Verdict for plaintiff for $689.12 was directed against both defendants, and from a judgment entered thereon the defendants appeal. The sections of the Code of Daws of 1912, requested to be set forth in the report of the case by Mr. Chief Justice Gary, are as follows: Sec. 2434. It shall be unlawful for any merchant or corporation engaged…

1Opinion of the Court

January 26, 1920. The opinion of the Court was delivered by I think the judgment is right and ought to be affirmed. There was no prejudicial error. If it be conceded that the issues were all equitable, and, therefore, triable by the Court, they were so tried. The preliminary ruling that certain issues were triable by jury was not prejudicial, because no issue was in fact submitted to the jury.

The statute starts out be denouncing as unlawful certain sales, without compliance with its provisions, which are in the main: (1) The making of a complete inventory; (2) a true schedule of the seller's…

2Cited by10 opinions

  1. Seedman v. FriedmanCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1942
  2. Smith v. BoyerSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1922
  3. Crosswell Enterprises, Inc. v. ArnoldCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1992
  4. Keedy v. Sterling Electric Appliance Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1921
  5. Fennell v. WoodwardSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1927

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

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

Powered by the Exa API