Allen v. Cooley
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Aldrich, J., Abbeville, January, 1898. Action by K. W. Allen v..D. K. Cooley. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. cite: Paper inadmissible because irrelevant: 6 How.
Read the full summary
Before Aldrich, J., Abbeville, January, 1898. Action by K. W. Allen v..D. K. Cooley. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. cite: Paper inadmissible because irrelevant: 6 How. Pr., 401; 12 N.Y., 820; 11 Wheat., 171; 5 Sand., 54; 2 E. D. Smith, 314; 3 Duer, 161. No aiithority shown for execution of sealed note: Code, 169; 5 S. C., 10; 11 S. C., 439; 17 S. C., 411; 18 S. C., 495; 24 S. C., 39; 29 S. C., 64. cites: Paper relevant: 23 S. C., 75. Objection not ruled on, not considered here: 44 S. C., 36. New trial not granted unless irrelevant testimony could have affected verdict: 30 S. C.,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Gary.
The plaintiff brought this action on a note, of which the following is a copy: “$2,000. One day after date, we promise to pay to Mrs. K. W. Allen, or order, the sum of $2,000, for value received, interest at eight per cent, per annum. Allen & Cooley, (l. S.) Witness our hands and seal, November 20th, 1891.” The third paragraph of the complaint is as follows: “3. That on the 30th day of September, 1897, the said firm of Allen & Cooley was dissolved by mutual consent, and a division of the assets had; and on the same day, the said D. K.…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Kirton v. HowardSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1926
- White v. Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1927
- Sloan v. LeeSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1922
- Smith v. Union-Buffalo Mills Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1915
- Wallace Ads. DowlingSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1910
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.