Dearman v. Trimmier
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Hudson, J., Spartanburg, September, 1886. The opinion fully states the case, but as only the result has been concurred in, it should be stated that in addition to the points considered in the opinion, the respondent earnestly contended that under the terms of the mortgage of Joplin to Trimmier, Joplin sold the mares as Trimmier’s agent'.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Mr. Justice McIver.
The facts of this case, so far as they are necessary to be stated for the purpose of determining the questions raised by this appeal, are as follows: one Thomas M. Joplin, being engaged in the business of buying and selling horses, borrowed money, for the purpose of enabling him to carry on his business, from the defendant, F. M. Trimmier. On April 24, 1876, he executed a note to the defendant for the sum of $1,027, securing the payment thereof by a mortgage on a lot of horses, among which were the two bay mares hereinafter referred…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Swift v. TysonSupreme Court of the United States · 1842
- Carpenter v. LonganSupreme Court of the United States · 1873
- Oates v. National BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
- Kenicott v. SupervisorsSupreme Court of the United States · 1873
- Bay v. CoddingtonNew York Court of Chancery · 1821
3Cited by11 opinions
- In Re WoodberryUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. South Carolina · 2008
- Kirton v. HowardSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1926
- Fitzgerald v. FlanaganSupreme Court of Iowa · 1912
- Morgan v. Farmington Coal & Coke Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1924
- Ex Parte PowellSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1906
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.