Legal Opinion · Dissent

Biltrite Bldg. Co. v. Elliott

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided August 1, 1932No. 13461Published

1Dissent

(dissenting) :

Being unable to concur in the opinion of Mr. Acting Associate Justice Cothran, I give hurriedly and briefly my reasons:

The sole question is: Are the defendants, the receivers, authorized to bring the action against the stockholders, under and by virtue of the Act of 1929, now Subdivision of Section 7855, Code of 1932?

That Act gives "any receiver appointed to liquidate the assets of any closed State bank” (italics added), the right to bring such action.

The language, I venture to think, is so plain that we need not resort to any rules of construction to ascertain its meaning.

Indeed…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. United States v. FisherSupreme Court of the United States · 1805
  2. Branchville Motor Co. v. AddenSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1930
  3. Traynham v. SmithSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1930
  4. Vassey v. SpakeSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1909

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

Powered by the Exa API