Haselden v. Hamer

96 S.E. 403, 110 S.C. 266, 1918 S.C. LEXIS 32
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedJuly 17, 1918
Docket10027
StatusPublished

This text of 96 S.E. 403 (Haselden v. Hamer) 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
Haselden v. Hamer, 96 S.E. 403, 110 S.C. 266, 1918 S.C. LEXIS 32 (S.C. 1918).

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Fraser.

This is the third appeal in this case. The former cases will be found in 97 S. C. 178, 81 S. E. 424, and 107 S. C. 164, 92 S. E. 387.

It is sufficient here to say this Court held in 97 S. C. that Mr. Haselden owed Mr. Hamer a debt, and that Mr. Hamer held certain securities of Mr. Haselden as security for debt; that Mr. Hamer had received dividends on the securities, and sent the case back in order that an accounting might be had between the parties. This accounting was not had, and in 107 S. C. the case was again sent back for the accounting. It was referred to the master for Dillon county to take the account. The master reported to the Court of Common *268 Pleas that the statement of the account required the service of an expert accountant, and that, inasmuch as he was not an expert accountant, he had appointed one to state the account. There was no appeal from this appointment. The Court of Common Pleas then fixed a limit for the filing of the master’s report. The master then reported that the time allowed was insufficient, and the plaintiff asked for an extension of time, which was refused, and a final judgment was made without the master’s report. Prom this judgment the plaintiff appealed. There is nothing ip the record to indicate that the plaintiff was at fault in failing to get the master’s report, and it was manifest error to grant a final judgment without that accounting, which this Court has ordered.

The judgment is reversed, and the case remanded to the Court of Common Pleas for Dillon county for the accounting heretofore ordered.

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

Related

Haselden v. Hamer
81 S.E. 424 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1914)
Haselden v. Hamer
92 S.E. 387 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1917)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
96 S.E. 403, 110 S.C. 266, 1918 S.C. LEXIS 32, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haselden-v-hamer-sc-1918.