Haig v. Commissioners of Confiscated Estates

Court of Chancery of South Carolina

Haig v. Commissioners of Confiscated Estates

1 S.C. Eq. 144

CourtCourt of Chancery of South Carolina

DecidedJuly 1, 1787

StatusPublished

This text of 1 S.C. Eq. 144 (Haig v. Commissioners of Confiscated Estates) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Chancery of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Haig v. Commissioners of Confiscated Estates, 1 S.C. Eq. 144 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1787).

Pincite

Opinion

On motion of general Pinckney, it is ordered, that James Neilson shew cause before the judges of this court, wby the property called Greenwood’s wharf, pui-chased by him at the sale directed by this court, to be made by muster thereof, should not be again sold, and the said James Neilson be answerable for any deficiency that may happen in the price for which the same may he re-sold; the said James. Neilson having refused to give security for the purchase money, agreeable to the terms of sale*

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

On motion of general Pinckney, it is ordered, that James Neilson shew cause before the judges of this court, wby the property called Greenwood’s wharf, pui-chased by him at the sale directed by this court, to be made by muster thereof, should not be again sold, and the said James Neilson be answerable for any deficiency that may happen in the price for which the same may he re-sold; the said James. Neilson having refused to give security for the purchase money, agreeable to the terms of sale*

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 S.C. Eq. 144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haig-v-commissioners-of-confiscated-estates-ctchansc-1787.