O'Dowd v. Waters, Mayor
Supreme Court of South Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Watts.
I do not concur in the opinion of Mr. Justice Cothran: As to the plaintiff’s appeal, I think his Honor was correct in finding and holding that the negotiations between him and the defendants did not amount to a contract and that the plaintiff had no cause of action for specific performance. Wilie v. Price, 5 Rich. Eq,, 91. Harmon v. Tel. Co., 65 S. C., 490; 43 S. E., 959. Holliday v. Pegram, 89 S. C., 73; 71 S. E., 367; Ann. Cas. 1913A, 33.
I think the exceptions of the defendant should be sustained on the ground that the City Council…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Haesloop v. City CouncilSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1923
- Holliday v. PegramSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1911
- Town of Darlington v. WardSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1897
- Thomasson v. Southern RailwaySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1905
- Dillingham v. City CouncilSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1907
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Elliott v. McNairSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1967
- Holliday v. HigbeeCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1949
- Cimarron Utilities Co. v. City of GuymonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1935
- McKinney v. City of GreenvilleSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1974
- Truesdale v. City of ColumbiaSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1943
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.