Graham v. State
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Smiti-i, J., Richland, Summer term, 1917. Action by John M. Graham against the State of South Carolina. From an order overruling demurrer to the complaint, the State appeals. submit: The act permitting suit (2/ Stats., upó) creates no cause of action—■ imposes no liability as against the State, where none existed independently of it.
Read the full summary
Before Smiti-i, J., Richland, Summer term, 1917. Action by John M. Graham against the State of South Carolina. From an order overruling demurrer to the complaint, the State appeals. submit: The act permitting suit (2/ Stats., upó) creates no cause of action—■ imposes no liability as against the State, where none existed independently of it. It merely provides a remedy for a cause of action, if any, z&hich plaintiff might have, under “the principles of law governing his (i. e\, the) right to a recovery in said action (i. e., authorised to be brought) as would govern the case if the action were…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Hydrick.
This appeal is from an order of the Circuit Court, overruling a demurrer to the complaint for insufficiency. On August 10, 1910, the board of directors of the State penitentiary, by authority of law, entered into a contract with plaintiff, whereby they.agreed to furnish him, for the purpose of conducting a hosiery mill within the walls of the penitentiary, the labor of from 200 to 350 convicts of a specified class, at a stipulated rate of hire, for a term of five years, beginning February 1, 1911. They agreed, also, to furnish the…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Sandel v. StateSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1920
- Fulghum v. BleakleySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1935
- Sirrine v. StateSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1925
- Lee v. LottCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1934
- Ouzts v. State Highway DepartmentSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1931
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.