Hubbard v. Camperdown Mills
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Kershaw, J., Greenville, July, 1886. This was a motion by the Nonantum Worsted Company and others, creditors and defendants in the cause, to recommit the master’s report on claims. The opinion states the facts bearing upon this motion. The Circuit decree, omitting its statement, was as follows: There are two questions upon which this motion depends. I. Will the court open the report and recommit for such causes as are here alleged ? II.
Read the full summary
Before Kershaw, J., Greenville, July, 1886. This was a motion by the Nonantum Worsted Company and others, creditors and defendants in the cause, to recommit the master’s report on claims. The opinion states the facts bearing upon this motion. The Circuit decree, omitting its statement, was as follows: There are two questions upon which this motion depends. I. Will the court open the report and recommit for such causes as are here alleged ? II. Do the proofs establish the alleged error ? The first question is to be determined by reference to the rules and practice of the Court of Chancery…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Mr. Justice McGowan.
This action was instituted by certain stockholders of the “Camperdown Mills,” an incorporated manufacturing company of Greenville, for the sale of the property, injunction, the appointment of a receiver, &c. See former case, 25 S. O., 496. Among other things, an order was passed directing the master to publish a notice for six months in the cities of Boston, Philadelphia, and Greenville, requiring the creditors of the defendant corporation to present and prove their demands, “the amount, date, and rank of their respective claims.”…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Ketchum v. DuncanSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
3Cited by1 opinion
- Durant v. ReamesSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1927