Seabrook v. Mostowitz
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Benet, J., Charleston, July, 1896. Action by E. Seabrook against Morris Mostowitz and Hugh Ferguson. From order rescinding temporary injunction the plaintiff appeals. cite: On-main question: 42 S. C., 101; 17 S. E. R., 364; Gen. Stat., 2464; Code, 227, 232; 44 Am. Dec., 444; Rev. Stat. 1896; Code, 240. cite: Order not appealable: 26 S. C., 613; 34 S. C., 345; 36 S. C., 559.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Jones.
This action was brought to have certain chattel mortgages executed by plaintiff to defendant, Mostowitz, declared null and void on the ground that plaintiff had tendered to defendant the balance of principal and interest, and all costs due thereon. The complaint further alleged that the defendant, Hugh Ferguson, as agent of the defendant, Mostowitz, without having made a seizure, has advertised the said personal property (viz: two Platte Bros, gins, one portable boiler and engine, one corn mill, and one cart), for sale, and is…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Ex Parte JonesSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1931
- Alderman & Sons Co. v. WilsonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1904
- Seabrook v. Carolina Power & Light Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1930
- Darlington Oil Co. v. Pee Dee Oil & Ice Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1901
- Claussen v. ChapinMontana Supreme Court · 1923
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.