Jackson v. South Carolina Colored State Fair Ass'n

96 S.E. 116, 109 S.C. 283, 1918 S.C. LEXIS 224
Supreme Court of South Carolina·Decided May 14, 1918·No. 9971·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Watts.

This is an appeal from an order of his Honor, Judge Peurifoy, refusing to appoint a receiver and refusing to ■continue an ex parte témpora^ restraining order granted by his Honor, Judge M. T. Smith.

*285 1, 2 His Honor, Judge Peurifoy, inquired into the facts of the case sufficiently for the purpose, not of deciding the case on its merits, but to determine whether or not in the exercise of his discretion he would appoint or refuse to appoint a receiver and grant the temporary restraining order asked for. This he had clearly the right to do, and in the exercise of the discretion vested in him he refused both. We see no error in his order as complained of.

The appeal is dismissed, and order appealed from affirmed.

Messrs. Justices Hydrick and Fraser concur. Mr. Ci-iiee Justice Gary and Mr. Justice Gage absent.

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

Jackson v. South Carolina Colored State Fair Ass'n, 96 S.E. 116, 109 S.C. 283, 1918 S.C. LEXIS 224 (S.C. 1918).

96 S.E. 116 (Jackson v. South Carolina Colored State Fair Ass'n) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Leisnoi, Inc. v. Merdes & Merdes, P.C.
307 P.3d 879 (Alaska Supreme Court, 2013)
Vasiliades v. Vasiliades
98 S.E.2d 810 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1957)
Ribero v. Callaway
196 P.2d 109 (California Court of Appeal, 1948)
Ex Parte Citizens' Exchange Bank
139 S.E. 135 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1927)
Wilson v. Cureton
103 S.E. 789 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1920)