United Grocery Co. v. Dannelly
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Copes, J., Bamberg, March term, 1912. Action by United Grocery Company against J. M. Dannelly & Son. Plaintiff appeals. cites: Entries made by one now nonresident may be proved by proof of handwriting: 2 McC. 349; 1 Bay 40, 480; 1 McCord 305; 62 S. C. 243; 2 Ene. 607-9; 2 Wig., sec. 1521; 2 Rice Ev. 835. cite: Account books must be produced in Court: 2 Bail. 394; 11 S. C. 239; 14 S. C. 444; 56 S. C. 442; 63 S. C. 572; 87 S. C. 430.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice PIydricic.
This was an action to recover $479.40, the amount alleged to be due on an open account for goods sold and delivered'.
Plaintiff’s bookkeeper testified that plaintiff’s books were kept on the loose-leaf system, that is, the leaves of the books are not stitched or bound together, but are arranged so that they can be taken out of the books, and the accounts of customers are kept on separate sheets. He produced and identified the sheets which contained the original entries of the account against defendant, and proved that they were in…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Rigby v. LoganSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1896
- Swancey v. ParrishSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1902
3Cited by6 opinions
- State v. BolynSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1928
- Grand Strand Construction Co. v. GravesSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1977
- Brown v. CantySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1932
- W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. ThompsonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1922
- Wynn v. ConeySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1958
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.