Legal Opinion

Noland v. Law

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided July 24, 1933No. 13676PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Chiee Justice Buease.

This is a very hard case, one we regret to have to decide. Either the appellant, Mrs. Noland, or the active respondents, Miss Caroline Law and Mrs. Elizabeth L. Dantzler, by our decision, will sustain a heavy loss. All three of them are estimable ladies, who, unfortunately, put their trust in an unfaithful member of the bar. The case is the result of the rascally conduct of Carson E. King, who is no longer, because of the action of the Grievance Committee of the State Bar Association and of this Court, entitled to practice in…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Westbury v. SimmonsSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1900
  2. Davis v. BlandSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1927
  3. Hahn v. SmithSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1930
  4. Anderson v. Citizens BankSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1914
  5. Middleton v. CockfieldSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1920

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Osprey, Inc. v. Cabana Ltd. PartnershipSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2000
  2. Bank of Commerce of Charlotte v. WatersSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1949
  3. Brown v. New York Life Ins. Co.District Court, W.D. South Carolina · 1938
  4. Fiberchem, Inc. v. General Plastics CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1974
  5. Fiberchem, Inc. v. General Plastics CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1974

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

Powered by the Exa API