Holliday v. Pegram
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before SeasE, J., Florence, September, 1910. Action by J. W. Holliday against G. H. Pegram & Company. Defendants appeal. cite: Do the letters make out a completed contract? 1 Page on Con., sec. 26; 118 Am. St. R. 806; 142 Mass. 442; 1 Par. on Con. 476-7; 9 Cyc. 267; 14 Allen 242; 6 H. L. Cas. 238; 80 Fed. 337; 5 Ch. Div. 648; 41 Am. St. R. 545; 10 Nev. 135; 10 Mo. App. 106; 46 Vt. 478; 19 Johns 212; 20 Wall. 546; 47 Hun. 494; 22 Fed. 596; 5 Rich.
Read the full summary
Before SeasE, J., Florence, September, 1910. Action by J. W. Holliday against G. H. Pegram & Company. Defendants appeal. cite: Do the letters make out a completed contract? 1 Page on Con., sec. 26; 118 Am. St. R. 806; 142 Mass. 442; 1 Par. on Con. 476-7; 9 Cyc. 267; 14 Allen 242; 6 H. L. Cas. 238; 80 Fed. 337; 5 Ch. Div. 648; 41 Am. St. R. 545; 10 Nev. 135; 10 Mo. App. 106; 46 Vt. 478; 19 Johns 212; 20 Wall. 546; 47 Hun. 494; 22 Fed. 596; 5 Rich. Eq. 91; 87 Hun. 477; 48 N. W. 963; 35 N. J. Eq. 266; 9 Cyc. 280; 29 D. R. A. 431. Rxtrinsic evidence is admissible to show whether the letters were…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion.
The opinion of the Court .was delivered by
Mr. Justice Gary
(after stating the facts). The plaintiff contends, that the letters “B,” “C” and “D,” show a complete contract between him and the defendants, and that the verdict was properly directed. On the other hand, the defendants contend, that the letters merely show negotiations for an agreement, which was not to be binding upon the parties, until it was formerly executed; also, that G. H. Pegram, alone, rented the house in his individual capacity.
1 The first question that will be considered, is, whether the letters which were…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Nash v. TowneSupreme Court of the United States · 1867
- West v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
- Williamson v. Eastern B. & L. Ass'nSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1899
- Williams v. SalmondSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1908
- Glover v. GasqueSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1903
3Cited by28 opinions
- Mitchell v. DavidDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1947
- Hester v. New Amsterdam Casualty CompanyDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 1967
- Blanton Enterprises, Inc. v. Burger King Corp.District Court, D. South Carolina · 1988
- Julius Kayser & Co. v. Textron, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1956
- Bugg v. BuggSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1978
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.