Fulmore v. Cockfield
18 S.C.L. 446
This text of 18 S.C.L. 446 (Fulmore v. Cockfield) 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
Fulmore v. Cockfield, 18 S.C.L. 446 (S.C. Ct. App. 1831).
Opinion
The presiding Judge was correct in decreeing for the plaintiff, upon defendant’s failure to answer the interrogatories. This is the settled practice in the summary process jurisdiction ; Walker v. Mathaney, Harp. 187, and the rule in this respect has never been changed. The motion for a new trial is refused.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
18 S.C.L. 446, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fulmore-v-cockfield-scctapp-1831.