Gibbes MacHinery Co. v. Hamilton

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Gibbes MacHinery Co. v. Hamilton

71 S.E. 1029, 89 S.C. 438, 1911 S.C. LEXIS 294

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedAugust 10, 1911

Docket7998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 71 S.E. 1029 (Gibbes MacHinery Co. v. Hamilton) 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

Gibbes MacHinery Co. v. Hamilton, 71 S.E. 1029, 89 S.C. 438, 1911 S.C. LEXIS 294 (S.C. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice PIydrick.

In an action for foreclosure by the assignee of a mortgage given to secure the purchase price of machinery, defendant, the mortgagor, denied the ¡allegations of the complaint, and set up, as affirmative defenses, misrepresentation and breach of warranty of the condition of machinery, failure of consideration-, and a counterclaim for damages for fraud and collusion between plaintiff and his assignor, the original mortgagee, in obtaining the mortgage from defendant. .Held, that defendant was not *439 entitled to a trial by jury. Bouland v. Garpin, 27 S. C. 235, 3 S. E. 219; McLaurin v. Hodges, 43 S. C. 187, 20 S. E. 991; Pratt v. Timmerman, 69 S. C. 186, 48 S. E. 255.

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 PIydrick.

In an action for foreclosure by the assignee of a mortgage given to secure the purchase price of machinery, defendant, the mortgagor, denied the ¡allegations of the complaint, and set up, as affirmative defenses, misrepresentation and breach of warranty of the condition of machinery, failure of consideration-, and a counterclaim for damages for fraud and collusion between plaintiff and his assignor, the original mortgagee, in obtaining the mortgage from defendant. .Held, that defendant was not *439 entitled to a trial by jury. Bouland v. Garpin, 27 S. C. 235, 3 S. E. 219; McLaurin v. Hodges, 43 S. C. 187, 20 S. E. 991; Pratt v. Timmerman, 69 S. C. 186, 48 S. E. 255.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 S.E. 1029, 89 S.C. 438, 1911 S.C. LEXIS 294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gibbes-machinery-co-v-hamilton-sc-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack