Crosswell v. Indemnity Ass'n
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Motion to reinstate appeal dismissed by the clerk, under Rule 1. Action by John Crosswell and Arthur Crosswell against the Connecticut Indemnity Association, tried at Sumter, fall term, 1896. Notice of intention to appeal was served in proper time, and by agreement proposed “Case” was served on December 31, 1896. Upon disagreement, it was referred to Judge Benet, January 23, 1897, for settlement.
Read the full summary
Motion to reinstate appeal dismissed by the clerk, under Rule 1. Action by John Crosswell and Arthur Crosswell against the Connecticut Indemnity Association, tried at Sumter, fall term, 1896. Notice of intention to appeal was served in proper time, and by agreement proposed “Case” was served on December 31, 1896. Upon disagreement, it was referred to Judge Benet, January 23, 1897, for settlement. The appellant’s counsel was under the impression that he had left the originals and original exceptions with Judge Benet. No “return” having been filed, upon application of respondent, the clerk…
1Per curiam
1 This is a motion to reinstate an appeal dismissed by the clerk, under Rule 1 of this Court, upon the ground that the return was not filed within the prescribed time. The motion is based, first, upon' the ground that the order of the clerk dismissing the appeal was not founded upon the evidence required by that rule, inasmuch as it is claimed that there was no certificate of the clerk that the return had not been filed prior to the order dismissing 'the appeal. This allegation is based upon a statement made in one of the affidavits based “upon information obtained from the said U. R. Brooks,…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Priester v. Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1929
- Rylee v. Marett, SheriffSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1922
- State v. CottinghamSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1953
- Sarratt v. CashSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1916
- State v. COTTINGHAMSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1953