Legal Opinion · Dissent

Buckeye Cotton Oil Co. v. Cheraw Ginning Co.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided October 28, 1927No. 12301Published

1DissentJustice Cothran

(dissenting) : I think that the decree of his Honor, Judge Memminger, should be affirmed, and therefore respectfully dissent from the contrary conclusion announced in the opinion of Mr. Justice Blease, for the reasons which follow.

This is an action to foreclose a certain mortgage executed by the defendant Cheraw Ginning Company to the plaintiff, Buckeye Oil Company, covering certain real estate and ginning machinery located in the Town of Cheraw, to secure the payment of three notes of $4,000 each, dated' August 21, 1919, and due, respectively, in one, two, and three years from date. The…

2Cases cited34 opinions

  1. Henry v. PhillipsTexas Supreme Court · 1912
  2. Butterick Publishing Co. v. FisherMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1909
  3. Orleans County National Bank v. MooreNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
  4. Bushnell v. ElkinsWyoming Supreme Court · 1926
  5. Rottman v. HevenerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921

29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API