Legal Opinion

Stewart v. Ficken

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided April 28, 1932No. 13395PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Bonham.

This case has had a tortuous route to travel in its efforts to reach a hearing in, the Circuit Court, on its merits. This is the third appeal to this Court from orders of the Circuit Court on motions to amend the complaint by making it more definite and certain.

The Supreme Court held, on the first appeal, that the complaint stated three causes of action; one peculiar to the cor poration, one peculiar to Emma H. Stewart, and one peculiar to Stephen Elliott, trustee. The case was remanded to the Circuit Court “with leave to the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Stewart v. FickenSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1929
  2. Givens v. North Augusta Electric & Improvement Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1912
  3. St. Charles Mercantile Co. v. Armour & Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1930
  4. Kirven v. KirvenSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1931
  5. Bank of Timmonsville v. Peoples BankSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1928

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Stewart v. FickenSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1934
  2. Floe v. PlowdenDistrict Court, E.D. South Carolina · 1950
  3. United Machine Works, Inc. v. WilliamsSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1977

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

Powered by the Exa API