Bailey v. Free and Accepted Masons of S.C.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Bailey v. Free and Accepted Masons of S.C.

108 S.E. 107, 116 S.C. 263, 1921 S.C. LEXIS 106

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJune 30, 1921

Docket10639

StatusPublished

This text of 108 S.E. 107 (Bailey v. Free and Accepted Masons of S.C.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bailey v. Free and Accepted Masons of S.C., 108 S.E. 107, 116 S.C. 263, 1921 S.C. LEXIS 106 (S.C. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Watts.

This is an appeal from a decree of County. Court, Judge Whaley, on the following statement:

“This action was commienced in the Richland County Court on the 4th day of August, 1920, by J. W. Bailey, the appellant herein, against Free and Accepted Masons' of South Carolina, for the specific performance of a contract to make a lease, which contract was entered into by the appellant and respondent, by letters set forth herein. Respondent, Free and Accepted Masons of South Carolina, by its answer, denied making the contract.

“The cause was referred to the master of the Court, to hear and determine all the issues of law and fact, and report the same to the Court. The master found against the appellant. Exceptions were duly taken by the appellant from the findings and rulings of the master, which exceptions are hereinafter set out.

“The exceptions were heard by his Honor, Judge Whaley, who by his decree, dated November 12, 1920, overruled appellant’s exceptions, sustained the master’s findings, and went further and found that there was no contract at all between the parties.”

The exceptions, four in number, impute error and ask reversal. All of the exceptions are overruled.

*272 1, 2 The contract relied on and for which specific performance is sought is indefinite as to everything, except as to the amount to be paid per month; indefinite as to when it was to commence. There was not a meeting of minds on this. It is silent as to the length of the lease, and one trustee could not make such a contract unless the other trustees approved or confirmed it. There is no evidence in the case that this was done, and the facts all show that his Honor’s decree is correct. Affirmed.

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

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Watts.

This is an appeal from a decree of County. Court, Judge Whaley, on the following statement:

“This action was commienced in the Richland County Court on the 4th day of August, 1920, by J. W. Bailey, the appellant herein, against Free and Accepted Masons' of South Carolina, for the specific performance of a contract to make a lease, which contract was entered into by the appellant and respondent, by letters set forth herein. Respondent, Free and Accepted Masons of South Carolina, by its answer, denied making the contract.

“The cause was referred to the master of the Court, to hear and determine all the issues of law and fact, and report the same to the Court. The master found against the appellant. Exceptions were duly taken by the appellant from the findings and rulings of the master, which exceptions are hereinafter set out.

“The exceptions were heard by his Honor, Judge Whaley, who by his decree, dated November 12, 1920, overruled appellant’s exceptions, sustained the master’s findings, and went further and found that there was no contract at all between the parties.”

The exceptions, four in number, impute error and ask reversal. All of the exceptions are overruled.

*272 1, 2 The contract relied on and for which specific performance is sought is indefinite as to everything, except as to the amount to be paid per month; indefinite as to when it was to commence. There was not a meeting of minds on this. It is silent as to the length of the lease, and one trustee could not make such a contract unless the other trustees approved or confirmed it. There is no evidence in the case that this was done, and the facts all show that his Honor’s decree is correct. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 S.E. 107, 116 S.C. 263, 1921 S.C. LEXIS 106, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bailey-v-free-and-accepted-masons-of-sc-sc-1921.