Kleckley v. Hook
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Memminger, J., Lexington, December, 1911. Action by Matilda Kleckley et al. against R. T. Hook. Plaintiff appeals. Plaintiff having testified as to the transactions, defendant’s evidence is competent: 55 S. C. 328; 32 S. C. 359. A contract to purchase for another, is not a contract of sale: 27 S. C. 1; Jones on Mtgs., secs. 323, 331; 97 N. S. 624; 41 Wis. 100; 77 Pa. St. 134; 5 Bart. 63; Story Eq. Jur., sec. 1201a. As to improvements: 77 S. C. 515.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Watts.
This is an action for specific performance of a contract to' convey land commenced February 24, 1911, and heard by his Honor, Judge Memminger, at the Fall term of the Court for Lexington county, 1911, and who filed his decree therein on December 2, 1911, refusing the prayer of the plaintiffs and dismissing the complaint. From this decree appellants appeal and impute error to his Honor by five exceptions. At the hearing the second exception was withdrawn by the appellants.
1 The first exception alleges error on the part of his Honor in…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Atlantic Savings Bank v. RowlandSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1925