McCreary v. Coggeshall
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Aldrich, J., Darlington, Fall Term, 1904. Action by Jas. H. McCreary, John A. McCreary, Sue H. Hawthorne, J. R. Hawthorne, Mary FI. McClelland, J. J. McClelland and Mattie E. Massey against A. C. Coggeshall, W D. Coggeshall and George Morrell.
Read the full summary
Before Aldrich, J., Darlington, Fall Term, 1904. Action by Jas. H. McCreary, John A. McCreary, Sue H. Hawthorne, J. R. Hawthorne, Mary FI. McClelland, J. J. McClelland and Mattie E. Massey against A. C. Coggeshall, W D. Coggeshall and George Morrell. From judgment for plaintiffs, defendants appeal. cite: The rules governing merger at law and in equity are different: 15 Ency., 314-5; 47 S. C., 297; 57 S. C., 182; 64 S. C., 193; 16 Cyc., 665; 20 Ency., 2 ed., 588; 16 S, C., 330; 28 S. C., 486; 23 S. C., 315. Mere intention or interest of parties does not prevent merger in this State: 16 S. C.,…
1Opinion of the Court
An opinion was filed in this case on the 21st day of October, 1905, but on petition for rehearing the following order was made:
November 2, 1905. Since the hearing and decision of this cause, Mr. Justice Woods has recalled the fact, which he had entirely overlooked, that the question of the effect of section 109 of the Code of Procedure on the rights of remaindermen was involved in a cause pending in the Court of Common Pleas in which he had been one of counsel. The views of the Court on this point are not questioned in the petition for rehearing, but at the request of Mr. Justice Woods, made…
2Cited by26 opinions
- Abernathy v. McCoyIndiana Court of Appeals · 1926
- Tzouvelekas v. TzouvelekasSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1945
- Blocker v. BlockerSupreme Court of Florida · 1931
- Bullock v. Peoples Bank of HolcombSupreme Court of Missouri · 1943
- Arnold v. WellsSupreme Court of Florida · 1930
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.