Eleazer v. Shealy

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Eleazer v. Shealy

81 S.E. 648, 97 S.C. 335, 1914 S.C. LEXIS 176

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedApril 21, 1914

Docket8808

StatusPublished

This text of 81 S.E. 648 (Eleazer v. Shealy) 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

Eleazer v. Shealy, 81 S.E. 648, 97 S.C. 335, 1914 S.C. LEXIS 176 (S.C. 1914).

Pincite

Opinions

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Chief Justice Gary.

The facts herein are stated in the decree of his Honor, the Circuit Judge.

1 In his findings of fact, he says : “After considering all the testimony, I am satisfied that Mr. Shealy received the check, not in payment of the money, but received it for the purpose of collecting the check for the petitioners, and, if collected, to-, apply it to- the purchase price of the land. I am therefore satisfied from the testimony that the bank was in bad condition at the time, and that Mr. Shealy made reasonable efforts to collect the check and Tailed.” The appellants have failed to satisfy this Court, by the preponderance of evidence, that these findings were erroneous.

2 Having reached this conclusion, the petition- should be dismissed, for the reason that, even if the decree was erroneous in any other respect, it has not been made to appear that the error was prejudicial to the rights of the appellants.

Judgment affirmed.

Watts, J., concurs in the opinion of the Chief Justice.

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. Chief Justice Gary.

The facts herein are stated in the decree of his Honor, the Circuit Judge.

1 In his findings of fact, he says : “After considering all the testimony, I am satisfied that Mr. Shealy received the check, not in payment of the money, but received it for the purpose of collecting the check for the petitioners, and, if collected, to-, apply it to- the purchase price of the land. I am therefore satisfied from the testimony that the bank was in bad condition at the time, and that Mr. Shealy made reasonable efforts to collect the check and Tailed.” The appellants have failed to satisfy this Court, by the preponderance of evidence, that these findings were erroneous.

2 Having reached this conclusion, the petition- should be dismissed, for the reason that, even if the decree was erroneous in any other respect, it has not been made to appear that the error was prejudicial to the rights of the appellants.

Judgment affirmed.

Watts, J., concurs in the opinion of the Chief Justice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 S.E. 648, 97 S.C. 335, 1914 S.C. LEXIS 176, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eleazer-v-shealy-sc-1914.