Pope v. Harter
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Two actions, (1) by Pope and Fleming against W. E. and Julia E. Harter, and (2) by Joseph Rosenheim & Sons against same defendants. From order sustaining demurrer, plaintiffs appeal. cite: 3 Strob., 544; 1 Ency., 2 ed., 1124; 12 Ves.
Read the full summary
Two actions, (1) by Pope and Fleming against W. E. and Julia E. Harter, and (2) by Joseph Rosenheim & Sons against same defendants. From order sustaining demurrer, plaintiffs appeal. cite: 3 Strob., 544; 1 Ency., 2 ed., 1124; 12 Ves. Jr., 349; L. R., 2 C. P., 174; 9 E. R., 426; 4 Harr., 452; 123 Mass., 77; 114 N. Y., 539; 5 Cush., 210; 6 Inch, 426; 4 T. B. Mon., 535; 2 Eitt., 168; 3 Me., 77; 8 Mass., 162; 4 Gray, 156; 2 Met., 319; 100 Mass., 487; 7 Wend., 106; 12 Wend., 413; 1 Hill, 287; 11 S. & R., 362; 20 Vt., 234; 39 Vt., 260; 94 Am. Dec., 324; 3 Hill, 72; 79 Pa. St., 298. cites: 39 S. E.…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Chief Justice Pope.
These two actions came on to be heard before his Honor, J. C. Klugh, as Circuit Judge. They were heard together for the convenience of counsel. After the complaint in each case was read, the defendant, W. E. Harter, interposed a demurrer, in writing, wherein he alleged that such complaint failed to state a cause of action against the defendant, W. E. Harter, in “that it appears upon the face of the complaint that the goods and merchandise mentioned in the complaint were sold to the defendant, Julia E. Harter, through her agent,…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Goodale v. PageSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1912
- Dangerfield v. BrownSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1936