Lipscomb v. Bank of Tatum

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Lipscomb v. Bank of Tatum

112 S.E. 827, 120 S.C. 147, 1922 S.C. LEXIS 95

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJuly 5, 1922

Docket10904

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 112 S.E. 827 (Lipscomb v. Bank of Tatum) 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

Lipscomb v. Bank of Tatum, 112 S.E. 827, 120 S.C. 147, 1922 S.C. LEXIS 95 (S.C. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Chief Justice Gary.

This is an appeal by the defendant from an order of reference, with the proviso that it should be without prejudice to the defendant, to have its right to a trial by jury afterwards determined. .

*148 The action is to recover from the defendant the sum of $4,034.30. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff is entitled to recover said sum, as Trustee in Bankruptcy of the Hamer-Spears Company, bankrupt, on the ground that the payment thereof was an unlawful preference. This allegation is denied by the defendant, and it alleges that the money was received by it in payment of a note and mortgage executed and recorded more than four months prior to the insolvency of said company, and that it was for money actually loaned to the company.

It is only necessary to cite the case of Hodges v. Kohn, 67 S. C., 69; 45 S. E., 102, to show that the defendant was entitled to a trial by jury, and that there was error in granting the order of reference.

Reversed.-

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. Chief Justice Gary.

This is an appeal by the defendant from an order of reference, with the proviso that it should be without prejudice to the defendant, to have its right to a trial by jury afterwards determined. .

*148 The action is to recover from the defendant the sum of $4,034.30. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff is entitled to recover said sum, as Trustee in Bankruptcy of the Hamer-Spears Company, bankrupt, on the ground that the payment thereof was an unlawful preference. This allegation is denied by the defendant, and it alleges that the money was received by it in payment of a note and mortgage executed and recorded more than four months prior to the insolvency of said company, and that it was for money actually loaned to the company.

It is only necessary to cite the case of Hodges v. Kohn, 67 S. C., 69; 45 S. E., 102, to show that the defendant was entitled to a trial by jury, and that there was error in granting the order of reference.

Reversed.-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 S.E. 827, 120 S.C. 147, 1922 S.C. LEXIS 95, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lipscomb-v-bank-of-tatum-sc-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack