Raysor v. Berkeley County Railway & Lumber Co.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Raysor v. Berkeley County Railway & Lumber Co.

2 S.E. 119, 26 S.C. 610, 1887 S.C. LEXIS 61

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedMarch 19, 1887

DocketNo. 2020

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 2 S.E. 119 (Raysor v. Berkeley County Railway & Lumber Co.) 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

Raysor v. Berkeley County Railway & Lumber Co., 2 S.E. 119, 26 S.C. 610, 1887 S.C. LEXIS 61 (S.C. 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Mr. Justice McGowan,

Plaintiff was employed by defendant at a salary of $100 a month. Prior to January, 1886, he demanded of the superintendent an increase of $25 a month, after January, or he would leave. The superintendent promised an answer in a few days, but did not answer for several months, when he informed plaintiff that his salary had been increased to $125 a month from May 1. This was an action to recover $75 — from February 1 to May 1 — the balance of salary having been paid. The claim was sustained by the trial justice, and by Judge Witherspoon on appeal to the Circuit Court. This court reversed the judgment below, holding that there was no assent by defendant to the increase of salary sued for.

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

Opinion by

Mr. Justice McGowan,

Plaintiff was employed by defendant at a salary of $100 a month. Prior to January, 1886, he demanded of the superintendent an increase of $25 a month, after January, or he would leave. The superintendent promised an answer in a few days, but did not answer for several months, when he informed plaintiff that his salary had been increased to $125 a month from May 1. This was an action to recover $75 — from February 1 to May 1 — the balance of salary having been paid. The claim was sustained by the trial justice, and by Judge Witherspoon on appeal to the Circuit Court. This court reversed the judgment below, holding that there was no assent by defendant to the increase of salary sued for.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 S.E. 119, 26 S.C. 610, 1887 S.C. LEXIS 61, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raysor-v-berkeley-county-railway-lumber-co-sc-1887.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack