Legal Opinion

Martin v. Laboon

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided May 16, 1921No. 10590PublishedCited by 10 opinions

Before MemmingER, ]., Anderson, April term, 1920. Action for specific performance by A. R. Martin against J. B. RaBoon. Prom judgment for defendant the plaintiff appeals. cite: Contract sufficiently definite under Statute of Frauds: 6 R. R. A. (N. S.) 956; 22 Wend. 148; 45 N. C. 65; 31 S. C. 606; 33 S. C. 376; 1 Brev. 546; 21 S C. 481; 25 R. C. R. 651; R. R. A. 1917-A 564. Failure to show definite time for payment should not defeat', contract: 77 S. C. 511; 25 R. R. R. 219,…

Read the full summary

Before MemmingER, ]., Anderson, April term, 1920. Action for specific performance by A. R. Martin against J. B. RaBoon. Prom judgment for defendant the plaintiff appeals. cite: Contract sufficiently definite under Statute of Frauds: 6 R. R. A. (N. S.) 956; 22 Wend. 148; 45 N. C. 65; 31 S. C. 606; 33 S. C. 376; 1 Brev. 546; 21 S C. 481; 25 R. C. R. 651; R. R. A. 1917-A 564. Failure to show definite time for payment should not defeat', contract: 77 S. C. 511; 25 R. R. R. 219, Sec. 18. After contract of sale, was executed Martin was no longer a tenant, but became a purchaser and acts thereafter…

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Cothran.

In the early part of the year 1919 the plaintiff, A. R. Martin, rented from the defendant, J. B. Ra Boon, a certain parcel of land, a portion of a tract containing 83 Ya acres which belonged to Ra Boon. It is conceded on all sides that the western, boundary of this rented parcel was a line, not accurately defined, but generally following a path which led from Rosamond’s mill to the Babb house on Ra Boon’s other land, and thence, roughly, in the same direction from the Babb house to a public road. It appears that the parties had had…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Diamond Coal & Coke Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
  2. McMillan v. McMillanSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1907
  3. Kennedy v. GramlingSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1890

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Ray v. WoosterSupreme Court of Missouri · 1954
  2. Speed v. SpeedSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1948
  3. Smith v. WilliamsSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1927
  4. Humble Oil & Refining Company v. DeLoacheDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 1969
  5. Cloniger v. ClonigerSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1973

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

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

Powered by the Exa API