State v. Lake
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Kershaw, J., Newberry, July, 1886. The case is thus fully stated by Mr. Justice McGowan in his dissenting opinion : This appeal was heard at the November term of this court, 1887, when a re-argument was ordered upon the following questions, to wit: “Whether the statute of limitations applies as a matter of defence by the defendants, principal and sureties, and especially whether it can be set up in action on bond, like that in this case. 2nd.
Read the full summary
Before Kershaw, J., Newberry, July, 1886. The case is thus fully stated by Mr. Justice McGowan in his dissenting opinion : This appeal was heard at the November term of this court, 1887, when a re-argument was ordered upon the following questions, to wit: “Whether the statute of limitations applies as a matter of defence by the defendants, principal and sureties, and especially whether it can be set up in action on bond, like that in this case. 2nd. And if so, whether the conditions warranting its interposition are present, either in behalf of the principal or the sureties, or both.” This…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Mit. Chief Justice Simpsoh.
Adopting the statement of this case found in the opinion prepared by Mr. Justice McGrowan, and concurring in that opinion down to the matter of the statute of limitations, but differing somewhat upon that question from said opinion, I beg leave to present the following as my views thereon.
The vital question in this case is the statute of limitations. His honor held that as to all of the alleged breaches of the bond, except the failure to pay to the parties the amounts collected for them, the statute was a bar, but as to this…
2Cited by1 opinion
- In Re Petition of KellarNevada Supreme Court · 1963