Hewlett v. South Bound R. R.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Hewlett v. South Bound R. R.

76 S.E. 32, 93 S.C. 76, 1912 S.C. LEXIS 298

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedOctober 30, 1912

Docket8352

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 76 S.E. 32 (Hewlett v. South Bound R. R.) 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

Hewlett v. South Bound R. R., 76 S.E. 32, 93 S.C. 76, 1912 S.C. LEXIS 298 (S.C. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Watts.

I think the exceptions should be overruled and the judgment affirmed. The Circuit Judge had authority to allow the amendment under sections 190, 191, 193 and 194 of the Code of Laws and under authority of Booth v. Langley, 51 S. C. 415, 29 S. E. 204; Mew v. Railway Co., 55 S. C. 99, 32 S. E. 528; Spears v. A. C. L. R. R. Co., 92 S. C. 297.

It was a matter entirely within his discretion and he did not erroneously exercise that discretion.

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 Watts.

I think the exceptions should be overruled and the judgment affirmed. The Circuit Judge had authority to allow the amendment under sections 190, 191, 193 and 194 of the Code of Laws and under authority of Booth v. Langley, 51 S. C. 415, 29 S. E. 204; Mew v. Railway Co., 55 S. C. 99, 32 S. E. 528; Spears v. A. C. L. R. R. Co., 92 S. C. 297.

It was a matter entirely within his discretion and he did not erroneously exercise that discretion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 S.E. 32, 93 S.C. 76, 1912 S.C. LEXIS 298, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hewlett-v-south-bound-r-r-sc-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack