Cleveland Williams v. Butler
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Memminger, J-, Greenville, March term, 1912. Action by Cleveland & Williams against P. S. Butler. Defendant appeals. After plaintiff has abandoned the cause of action on an express contract there was left no allegation on which recovery could be had: 9 Cyc. 748, 749, 750; 3 Hill 223; 48 S. C. 298; 84 S. C. 73; 87 S. C. 250; 87 S. C. 84. A quantum meruit cause of action is alleged: 21 S. C. 599; 70 S. C. 178, 377; 74 S. C. 222.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Woods.
The plaintiffs, real estate brokers, recovered a judgment against the defendant for services performed in effecting for him an exchange of certain lots in the suburbs of the city of Greenville, known as “Don-wood,” for a peach farm in Georgia. There are a number of exceptions, but the appeal turns on two- positions taken by defendant’s counsel: First, that the complaint states a cause of action on an express contract exclusively, and that the plaintiff having, in the course of the trial, announced his abandonment of that cause of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- King v. Western Union Tel. Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1909
3Cited by8 opinions
- H. G. Hall Construction Co. v. J.E.P. EnterprisesCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1984
- Hutson v. StoneSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1922
- Howard & Foster Co. v. Citizens Nat. BankSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1926
- Riddle v. GeorgeSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1936
- United Farm Agency v. MalanukSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1985
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.