Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Neely v. Love

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided March 9, 1928No. 12393Published

1ConcurrenceJustice Brease

(concurring in result) : I concur with the conclusion that the decree of the Circuit Court should be affirmed.

For lack of proper time, I shall not undertake a full review of the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Cothran, but I do wish to make a few observations as to some statements made by him and to some positions he takes.

With the position of the learned justice to the effect that the plaintiff, Mrs. Neely, should not be bound by anything that Colonel Gaston, the attorney for the heirs of Mr. Love, said or did or failed to do, I am in full accord, for he was not at any time the agent or…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Goble v. American Railway Express CompanySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1923
  2. Land Mortgage Co. v. GillamSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1897
  3. Williams v. Philadelphia Life Ins. Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1916
  4. Mortgage & Acceptance Corp. v. StewartSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1927
  5. Cogswell v. CannadySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1926

11 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