Rish v. Jackson

147 S.E. 324, 149 S.C. 338, 1929 S.C. LEXIS 97
Supreme Court of South Carolina·Decided February 22, 1929·No. 12602·Published

Opinions

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Chief Justice Watts.

This is an appeal from a decree of his Honor Judge Rice. For a proper understanding of the case, the decree of Judge Rice will be reported.

*342 There are five exceptions.

Chief Justice Gary, in the case of Hickson Lumber Co. v. Stallings, 91 S. C., 473, 74 S. E., 1072, uses this language: “It was incumbent on the appellant, to satisfy this Court, by the preponderance of the evidence, that his Honor, the presiding Judge, erred in his findings of fact,” which he has failed to do. Also Leland, v. Morrison, 92 S. C., 510, 75 S. E., 889, Ann. Cas., 1914-B, 349; Simmons v. Pender, 124 S. C., 506, 117 S. E., 731; Amick v. Wessinger, 125 S. C., 68, 118 S. E., 32; Boozer v. Gunter, 127 S. C., 141, 120 S. E., 749.

There is ample testimony to support the decree of Judge Rice.

All of the exceptions are overruled and judgment affirmed.

Messrs. Justices Brease, Stabrer and Carter concur.

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

Rish v. Jackson, 147 S.E. 324, 149 S.C. 338, 1929 S.C. LEXIS 97 (S.C. 1929).

147 S.E. 324 (Rish v. Jackson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Boozer v. Gunter
120 S.E. 749 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1923)
Leland v. Morrison
75 S.E. 889 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1912)
Hickson Lumber Co. v. Stallings
74 S.E. 1072 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1912)
Simmons v. Pender
117 S.E. 731 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1923)
Amick v. Wessinger
118 S.E. 32 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1923)