Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Anderson v. Purvis

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided October 24, 1947No. 16000Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partOxner, J.

I am in full accord with the conclusion that the alleged agreement to cancel the mortgage indebtedness, in consideration of professional services rendered by respondent, is not sustained by the evidence. Although in his answer respondent does not undertake to set up a counterclaim or offset for the value of the medical services rendered to the Anderson family, I see no objection to remanding the case for the purpose of determining the fair and reasonable value of these services and crediting the amount so found on the mortgage debt. But I think the majority opinion goes entirely too far in…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Malcolm v. TalleyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1921
  2. Bank of Columbia v. GadsdenSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1899

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

Powered by the Exa API