Legal Opinion

Ham v. Flowers

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided February 7, 1949No. 16180PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Oxner, Justice.

This appeal involves • two actions in equity which are closely interrelated and, by consent of the parties, were consolidated in the Court below. Each suit was brought to redeem a tract of land from a mortgage and for an accounting of the rents arid prbfits. , ’ -

On Match 31, 1920, appellant, S. Joseph Ham, for the purpose of obtaining, supplies for 1920, executed and delivered to one W. Q. Flowers a mortgage for $1,000.00 covering 24 1/2 acres of land. The record does not disclose the date of maturity. Apparently the supplies furnished exceeded the amount of the mortgage and…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Bell v. MackeySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1939
  2. Becker v. . McCreaNew York Court of Appeals · 1908
  3. Frady v. IvesterSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1921
  4. Frady v. IvesterSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1924
  5. Bradley v. CalhounSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1923

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Knight v. HiltonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1954
  2. Chambers of South Carolina, Inc. v. County CouncilSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1993
  3. Privette v. GarrisonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1959
  4. All Saints Parish v. Protestant Episcopal Church in DioceseCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2004
  5. Jannino v. JanninoSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1959

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API