Marshall, Springs & Co. v. Smith
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Wilson, J., Hampton, fall term, 1909. Action by Marshall, Springs & Co. against E. G. Smith. From judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. cites: Court should construe written instruments: 74 S. C., 319; 81 S. C., 229. Part performance by one party binds the other: 80 S. C., 574. After condition broken legal title to chattels vests in mortgagee. cite: Mortgagee may attack mortgage for fraud: 38 S. C., 199. 30 Mo. App., 32; 18 Ency.
Read the full summary
Before Wilson, J., Hampton, fall term, 1909. Action by Marshall, Springs & Co. against E. G. Smith. From judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. cites: Court should construe written instruments: 74 S. C., 319; 81 S. C., 229. Part performance by one party binds the other: 80 S. C., 574. After condition broken legal title to chattels vests in mortgagee. cite: Mortgagee may attack mortgage for fraud: 38 S. C., 199. 30 Mo. App., 32; 18 Ency. P. & P., 550. Judge not required to charge request not submitted in writing: 78 S. C., 401; 79 S. C., 131. Whether there ivas any evidence to sustain the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Citiee Justice Jones.
This is an action in claim and delivery of two mules, and resulted in a verdict and judgment for defendant for the return of the mules and two hundred and twenty-five dollars damages.
The plaintiffs present a number of exceptions, but we will confine attention to the questions which must control the appeal.
The undisputed facts are that in 1906, plaintiffs made advances to defendant which were secured by a mortgage of the two mules in question; that there was a balance due on this debt, testified by palintiffs to be $250.00,…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Bank of Norris v. Pates & Allen Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1918
- Fuller v. McLeodSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1912