McCreary v. Coggeshall

53 S.E. 978, 74 S.C. 42, 1906 S.C. LEXIS 79
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedMarch 15, 1906
StatusPublished
Cited by28 cases

This text of 53 S.E. 978 (McCreary v. Coggeshall) 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
McCreary v. Coggeshall, 53 S.E. 978, 74 S.C. 42, 1906 S.C. LEXIS 79 (S.C. 1906).

Opinions

An opinion was filed in this case on the 21st day of October, 1905, but on petition for rehearing the following order was made:

November 2, 1905. Since the hearing and decision of this cause, Mr. Justice Woods has recalled the fact, which he had entirely overlooked, that the question of the effect of section 109 of the Code of Procedure on the rights of remaindermen was involved in a cause pending in the Court of Common Pleas in which he had been one of counsel. The views of the Court on this point are not questioned in the petition for rehearing, but at the request of Mr. Justice Woods, made for the reason above stated, the cause is opened so that argument on this point may be heard by the Court without his participation. *Page 45 As the cause is to be reopened, counsel will be heard also on the issues referred to in the petition for rehearing.

It is, therefore, ordered, that the cause be set down for rehearing at the November Term, 1905, of this Court, upon the call of the Fourth Circuit.

The case was reargued at November Term, 1905. MR. JUSTICE WOODS sitting at the request of all counsel, the question of the effect of section 109 of Code of Proc. on rights of remaindermen having been withdrawn.

March 15, 1906. The opinion of the Court was delivered by

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

Related

Lyle Fairey, Jr. v. Joy Gillespie
Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2023
Ball v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA
319 P.3d 844 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2014)
Eadon v. White
Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2008
First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Finn
387 S.E.2d 253 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1989)
Jones v. Holland
77 S.E.2d 202 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1953)
Tzouvelekas v. Tzouvelekas
33 S.E.2d 73 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1945)
Bullock v. Peoples Bank of Holcomb
173 S.W.2d 753 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1943)
Saum v. Hine
1936 OK 658 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1936)
Greenwood Cotton Mill v. Pace
174 S.E. 473 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1934)
McCraney v. Morris
170 S.E. 276 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1933)
Dickey v. Citizens State Bk. of Fairmount
180 N.E. 36 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1932)
Blocker v. Blocker
137 So. 249 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1931)
Burkhalter v. Breeden
160 S.E. 165 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1931)
Arnold v. Wells
131 So. 400 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1930)
Pope v. Hammond
149 S.E. 204 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1929)
First National Bank v. Hutson
140 S.E. 596 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1927)
Abernathy v. McCoy
154 N.E. 682 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1926)
Citizens' Nat. Bank v. First Nat. Bank
222 P. 935 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1924)
Owings v. Graham
113 S.E. 279 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1922)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
53 S.E. 978, 74 S.C. 42, 1906 S.C. LEXIS 79, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccreary-v-coggeshall-sc-1906.