Legal Opinion

Kirkpatrick v. Hardeman

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided December 19, 1921No. 10798PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

■ The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Chiee Justice Gary.

The first question that will be considered is whether the agreement was within the statute of frauds. Section 3738 of the Code of Daws of 1912 is as follows:

“No contract for the sale of any goods, wares and merchandise for the price of fifty dollars or upwards shall be allowed to be good except the buyer shall accept part of the goods so sold and actually receive the same, or give something in earnest to bind the bargain, or in part payment, or that some note or memorandum in writing of the said bargain be made and signed by…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Louisville Asphalt Varnish Co. v. LorickSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1888
  2. Clinton Oil & Mfg. Co. v. CarpenterSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1919

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Beckroge v. South Carolina Public Service Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1937
  2. McCall Co. v. Hobbs-Henderson Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1927
  3. Pitts v. EdwardsSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1927

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

Powered by the Exa API