McConnell v. Baker

169 S.E. 842, 170 S.C. 111, 1933 S.C. LEXIS 144
Supreme Court of South Carolina·Decided June 14, 1933·No. 13652·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Bonham.

This appeal is from an order of Judge Foster of the Spartanburg County Court, which sustains the judgment for the respondent given in the Court of Magistrate Ballenger. The issues properly involved in the case are clearly stated in the order of Judge Foster, and are disposed of in a manner satisfactory to this Court. It is needless to review the authorities which our investigation has found to be applicable. It is sufficient to say that the strong majority opinions of these authorities are in consonance with the conclusions reached by the order of Judge Foster. The annotation attached to the case of Richmond Dry Goods Company v. Wil son, 105 W. Va., 221, 141 S. E., 876, 57 A. L. R., 31-33, and the opinion in that case itself, are especially in point. See, also, 39 C. J., 153, §§ 205, 206.

The exceptions are overruled and the order appealed from is affirmed.

Ret it be reported.

Mr. Chiee Justice Brease and Messrs. Justices StabrEr and Carter concur.

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

McConnell v. Baker, 169 S.E. 842, 170 S.C. 111, 1933 S.C. LEXIS 144 (S.C. 1933).

169 S.E. 842 (McConnell v. Baker) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

National Memorial Park, Inc. v. Geller
312 F. Supp. 707 (D. Maryland, 1970)
Agnew v. Cameron
247 Cal. App. 2d 619 (California Court of Appeal, 1967)
Landry v. Huber
138 So. 2d 449 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1962)
Sutton v. Avery
44 A.2d 701 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1945)