Albright v. Town Council

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Albright v. Town Council

43 S.C.L. 399

DecidedMay 15, 1856

StatusPublished

This text of 43 S.C.L. 399 (Albright v. Town Council) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Albright v. Town Council, 43 S.C.L. 399 (S.C. Ct. App. 1856).

Pincite

Opinion

Curia, per

O’Neall, J.

I agree to the principle laid down by my late friend, Chancellor David Johnson, in the Railroad Company vs. Claghorn, et al., Speer’s Eq. 562; “ There is nothing in law or equity which forbids a member, or even a director of a corporation from contracting with it, and like any other individual, he has a right to prescribe his own term's, which the corporation are at liberty to accept or reject, and when the contract is concluded, he stands in the same relation to the other creditors of the corporation as any other individual would under the same circumstances.”

[400]*400According to this principle, certainly the contract with the Intendant and a stranger is good.

The jury have decided that the work was done according to contract.

The motion is dismissed.

Wardlaw, Withers, Whither, Glover and Munro, JJ., concurred.

Motion dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Curia, per

O’Neall, J.

I agree to the principle laid down by my late friend, Chancellor David Johnson, in the Railroad Company vs. Claghorn, et al., Speer’s Eq. 562; “ There is nothing in law or equity which forbids a member, or even a director of a corporation from contracting with it, and like any other individual, he has a right to prescribe his own term's, which the corporation are at liberty to accept or reject, and when the contract is concluded, he stands in the same relation to the other creditors of the corporation as any other individual would under the same circumstances.”

[400]*400According to this principle, certainly the contract with the Intendant and a stranger is good.

The jury have decided that the work was done according to contract.

The motion is dismissed.

Wardlaw, Withers, Whither, Glover and Munro, JJ., concurred.

Motion dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 S.C.L. 399, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/albright-v-town-council-scctapp-1856.