• Open Daily: 10am - 10pm
    Alley-side Pickup: 10am - 7pm

    3038 Hennepin Ave Minneapolis, MN
    612-822-4611

Open Daily: 10am - 10pm | Alley-side Pickup: 10am - 7pm
3038 Hennepin Ave Minneapolis, MN
612-822-4611
Reports of Cases Heard and Determined by the Supreme Court of South Carolina (Volume 35)

Reports of Cases Heard and Determined by the Supreme Court of South Carolina (Volume 35)

Paperback

Currently unavailable to order

ISBN10: 1154010929
ISBN13: 9781154010923
Publisher: General Books
Pages: 242
Weight: 0.97
Height: 0.51 Width: 7.44 Depth: 9.69
Language: English
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1892. Excerpt: ... the main issues in the case was whether Head was defendant's agent, and a witness was permitted to testify that defendant paid for oats purchased from her by Head. The verdict was for plaintiff, and two days after its rendition, the trial justice entered up judgment for the amount of the verdict and for costs, stating the sum. On appeal to the Circuit Court, Judge Pressley set aside the judgment below and gave judgment for the amount of the debt claimed and such costs as the clerk of court should tax. On appeal by defendant to this court, held, 1. That the scope of Head's agency was a question of fact which cannot be reviewed in a case at law, on appeal from the Circuit Judge's decision of an appeal from a trial justice. Nichols v. Railroad Company, 23 S. C, 604. 2. The trial justice was not without jurisdiction to enter up judgment by failing to enter it up on the very day that the verdict was rendered. 3. The testimony objected to was relevant and admissible, whatever its weight might be. Opinion by Mr. Justice Mcgowan, February 25, 1892. N. W. Hardin, for appellant. TP. B. DeLoach, contra. No. 2885. Wingo v. Caldwell. November Term, 1891. This was an action for the recovery of sixty acres of land, the plaintiff claiming as remainderman under the will of one Davis and the defendant by parol gift from Davis in his life-time. Judgment below (kershaw, J.) was for plaintiff, and defendant appealed. 1. This court would not declare error in the refusal of the Circuit Judge to grant a non-suit on the ground that there was no proof of the death of the life tenant, when no such ground, but an entirely different one, was taken in support of the motion for non-suit. At the close of all the testimony, proof of this fact was permitted to be supplied, and doubtless s...