State v. Spartanburg & Union Railroad
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Befoee MACKEY J., at Fairfield, February, 1874. This was an action by the State of South Carolina, plaintiff, against the Spartanburg and Union Railroad Company, Rufus Y. Me Aden “and all other creditors of the same whose interest may require an answer to this complaint,” defendants. The summons and complaint were signed “D. PI.
Read the full summary
Befoee MACKEY J., at Fairfield, February, 1874. This was an action by the State of South Carolina, plaintiff, against the Spartanburg and Union Railroad Company, Rufus Y. Me Aden “and all other creditors of the same whose interest may require an answer to this complaint,” defendants. The summons and complaint were signed “D. PI. Chamberlain, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, plaintiff, J. M. Baxter, James H. Rion, William Munro, Robert W. Shand, attorneys of counsel,” and were dated 23d September, 1871. The complaint alleged: I. That the said Spartanburg and Union Railroad…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Moses, C. J.
The General Assembly, by Act of December 21st, 1857, (12 Stat., 612,) passed an Act by which it directed that its guaranty should be endorsed upon certain bonds of the Spartanburg and Union Railroad Company, and that “ as soon as any of the said bonds shall have been endorsed, and as they may be endorsed, they shall constitute a lien or mortgage upon the whole of the said railroad,” etc., and that." the State of South Carolina, upon the endorsement of the said bonds, and by virtue thereof, shall be invested with the said lien or mortgage…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- City of Lexington v. ButlerSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
- City v. LamsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1870
- Brown v. SouthworthNew York Court of Chancery · 1841