McCutchen v. Crenshaw
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Hudson, J., Sumter, April, 1893. Action by James E. McCutchen against D. G.'Crenshaw & Co. and E. Scott Carson, as sheriff, commenced about December 1, 1892. In his charge to the jury, the trial judge thus construed the written contract set out in the opinion of the court: The contract between McCutchen and Adam Jefferson is a contract between employer and employee, between the farmer and the laborer on his farm.
Read the full summary
Before Hudson, J., Sumter, April, 1893. Action by James E. McCutchen against D. G.'Crenshaw & Co. and E. Scott Carson, as sheriff, commenced about December 1, 1892. In his charge to the jury, the trial judge thus construed the written contract set out in the opinion of the court: The contract between McCutchen and Adam Jefferson is a contract between employer and employee, between the farmer and the laborer on his farm. It is no contract of tenancy, and the contract in substance is this, so far as Adam Jefferson is concerned: I, McCutchen, make this contract with you, Jefferson, I put you on…
1Opinion of the Court
The opiuion of the court was delivered by
Mr. Justice McGowan.
This was an action for “claim and delivery” of certain personal property, farm products, viz: two bales of cotton, sixty-five bushels of corn, 800 pounds of fodder, &c., which were stored on the plantation of the plaintiff, and also 400 pounds of cotton in the seed, still ungathered in the field, amounting iu value to about $170, which property the plaintiff claimed; but on November 4th, 1892, the same was seized and, as alleged, wrongfully taken from his possession by the defendants, D. G. Crenshaw & Co., who, by the aid of E.…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Newton v. BennettSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1918
- Smith v. Williamston MillsSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1926
- State v. ElmoreSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1904
- State v. ElmoreSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1904