Burmester v. Moseley
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Kershaw, J., Charleston, June, 1889. These were two actions against Julia A. Moseley, carrying on business as The Edisto Lumber Company, and A. Bequest, commenced in February, 1889, one by John W. Burmester and the other by F. J. Lilienthal & Son.
Read the full summary
Before Kershaw, J., Charleston, June, 1889. These were two actions against Julia A. Moseley, carrying on business as The Edisto Lumber Company, and A. Bequest, commenced in February, 1889, one by John W. Burmester and the other by F. J. Lilienthal & Son. The complaint and verification in Burmester’s case was as follows : The plaintiff above named, complaining of the defendant, alleges : I. That heretofore the defendant, Julia A. Moseley, carrying on business as the Edisto Lumber Company, made her promissory note in writing, dated on the 6th day of April, 1888, at Charleston, S. C., and…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Mr. Justxce McIver.
These two cases presenting precisely the same legal question, growing out of the same state of facts substantially, were heard and" will be considered together. That question is, whether the complaint was properly verified. All of the allegations in the complaint are made in such a form as necessarily to imply that they are made upon the knowledge of plaintiff, there being nothing whatever to indicate that any .one of these allegations wras made upon information and belief, and yet the affidavit appended for the purpose of verifying…
2Cited by4 opinions
- S. B. McMaster, Inc. v. Chevrolet Motor Co.District Court, E.D. South Carolina · 1925
- McClatchey v. Guaranty Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1953
- Robinson v. GreggU.S. Circuit Court for the District of South Carolina · 1893
- Lockwood v. MacLeanSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1912