Pittman Bros. v. Raysor
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Harte, J., Barnwell, November, 1896. Action in foreclosure by Pittman Bros, against S. J. Ray-sor. Judgment for defendant.
Read the full summary
Before Harte, J., Barnwell, November, 1896. Action in foreclosure by Pittman Bros, against S. J. Ray-sor. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals. cites: Married woman estopped by her declarations: 45 S. C., 651; 42 S. C., 323; 38 S. C-, 437; 33 S. C., 233; 31 S. C., 441; 26 S. C., 288; 34 S. C., 246. cite: Whoever invokes estoppel mtist show that he has been indvtced to change or alter his position: 36 S. C., 211; 42 S. C., 326; 31 S. C., 426; 35 S. C., 461. Assignees haye no higher equities than assignors: 38 S. C., 148; 45 S. C., 83.'
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Gary.
The plaintiffs commenced this action on the 26th of January, 1895, to foreclose a mortgage of real estate. The complaint alleges that G. W. Egan and A. J. Pittman were copartners, doing business in Charleston, under the firm name of Pittman Bros., at the times mentioned in the complaint; that on the 1st of January, 1894, the defendant, S. J. Raysor, executed her bond to M. A. Moye, H. J. Moody, and A. B. Hooten, copartners as Moye, Moody & Co., conditioned for the payment of $1,500 one year from the date thereof, with interest at the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Tooke v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1920
- Brown v. New York Life Ins. Co.District Court, W.D. South Carolina · 1938
- Tucker v. HudgensSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1925
- Heyward-Williams Co. v. ZeiglerSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1917