Hoover v. Thames

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Hoover v. Thames

79 S.E. 795, 96 S.C. 31, 1913 S.C. LEXIS 66

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedOctober 14, 1913

Docket8669

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 79 S.E. 795 (Hoover v. Thames) 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

Hoover v. Thames, 79 S.E. 795, 96 S.C. 31, 1913 S.C. LEXIS 66 (S.C. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Hydrick.

Plaintiff sold defendants a planing mill and took their notes, secured by a mortgage of the mill, in part payment of the purchase money. Defendants having failed to pay the notes at maturity, and having refused to deliver the mortgaged property to plaintiff, on demand, this action was brought to recover possession thereof for the purpose of foreclosing the mortgage. The defendants’ first answer was a general denial. Subsequently, they moved for leave to amend their answer by setting up a counterclaim for damages, resulting to-them on account of alleged false and fraudulent misrepresentations *32 of the plaintiff in the sale of the mill as to its condition and its fitness for the purposes for which they bought it, and for breach of warranty. From the order allowing the amendment, the plaintiff appealed.

The case is controlled by the decision in Woodruff Machinery & Mfg. Co. v. Timms, 93 S. C. 99, 76 S. E. 114.

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 Hydrick.

Plaintiff sold defendants a planing mill and took their notes, secured by a mortgage of the mill, in part payment of the purchase money. Defendants having failed to pay the notes at maturity, and having refused to deliver the mortgaged property to plaintiff, on demand, this action was brought to recover possession thereof for the purpose of foreclosing the mortgage. The defendants’ first answer was a general denial. Subsequently, they moved for leave to amend their answer by setting up a counterclaim for damages, resulting to-them on account of alleged false and fraudulent misrepresentations *32 of the plaintiff in the sale of the mill as to its condition and its fitness for the purposes for which they bought it, and for breach of warranty. From the order allowing the amendment, the plaintiff appealed.

The case is controlled by the decision in Woodruff Machinery & Mfg. Co. v. Timms, 93 S. C. 99, 76 S. E. 114.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 S.E. 795, 96 S.C. 31, 1913 S.C. LEXIS 66, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoover-v-thames-sc-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack