Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. Kirven
Supreme Court of the United States
ERROR TO THE SUPREME. COURT OF THE STATE OP SOUTH CAROLINA. The facts are stated in the opinion. The question litigated in the present suit was rendered res judicata by the judgment in the Federal court as it was matter that should have been set. up as counterclaim. Such is the rule in South Carolina, §§ 170, 171, Code of Procedure, and under § 914, Rev. Stat., the practice of the Federal courts must conform thereto. See Simonton, Fed.
Read the full summary
ERROR TO THE SUPREME. COURT OF THE STATE OP SOUTH CAROLINA. The facts are stated in the opinion. The question litigated in the present suit was rendered res judicata by the judgment in the Federal court as it was matter that should have been set. up as counterclaim. Such is the rule in South Carolina, §§ 170, 171, Code of Procedure, and under § 914, Rev. Stat., the practice of the Federal courts must conform thereto. See Simonton, Fed. Courts, §§ 106, 152, 157; Haygood v. Boney, 43 S. Car.' 63; Schunk v. Moline, 147 U. S. 500; Pickham v. Manufacturing Co., 77 Fed. Rep. 663; Turner v.…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice McKenna
This case involves the question as to whether the state courts gave due force and effect to a judgment of the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of South Carolina in an action brought by plaintiff in error against the defendant in error.
The action in the case at bar was brought by defendant in error, whom we shall call Kirven, against plaintiff in error, whom we shall call the Chemical Company, for damages resulting from the defective manufacture of certain fertilizers bought’ by Kirven of the Chemical Company, through one McCall, to whom he .gave his note for twenty-two…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Cromwell v. County of SacSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Crescent City Live Stock Co. v. Batchers' Union Slaughter-House Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Deposit Bank v. FrankfortSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
- Merchants Heat & Light Co. v. J. B. Clow & SonsSupreme Court of the United States · 1907
- Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. SlaghtSupreme Court of the United States · 1907
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by59 opinions
- Mercoid Corp. v. Mid-Continent Investment Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Toucey v. New York Life InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Alexander v. HillmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- City of Owensboro v. Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Troxell v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
54 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.