Moore v. Hinson

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Moore v. Hinson

92 S.E. 619, 107 S.C. 290, 1917 S.C. LEXIS 105

Supreme Court of South Carolina·Decided May 29, 1917·No. 9691·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Chief Justice Gary.

When this case was called for argument, the respondent’s attorney announced that his information was by a telegram from his office at Cheraw that the case was settled. Appellant’s attorney said he had no information concerning the alleged settlement, and argued the case. Investigation develops the fact that the case was settled between the par *291 ties, money paid to the clerk of Court of Chesterfield county by the respondent, and received by the appellant.

It is, therefore, ordered that this action on the part of the appellant worked a discontinuance of -the appeal, and the Court will not consider the appeal.

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.

When this case was called for argument, the respondent’s attorney announced that his information was by a telegram from his office at Cheraw that the case was settled. Appellant’s attorney said he had no information concerning the alleged settlement, and argued the case. Investigation develops the fact that the case was settled between the par *291 ties, money paid to the clerk of Court of Chesterfield county by the respondent, and received by the appellant.

It is, therefore, ordered that this action on the part of the appellant worked a discontinuance of -the appeal, and the Court will not consider the appeal.

Moore v. Hinson, 92 S.E. 619, 107 S.C. 290, 1917 S.C. LEXIS 105 (S.C. 1917).

Pincite

92 S.E. 619 (Moore v. Hinson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related