Rush v. Thompson
26 S.E.2d 411, 203 S.C. 106, 1943 S.C. LEXIS 84
Opinion
After a careful study and consideration of the record in this case, in the light of the issues made by the exceptions, and after considering the briefs of counsel, we are of'the opinion that the Circuit Court in its well-considered decree, correctly decided the case. We adopt that decree as the judgment of this Court. Let it be reported.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Rush v. Thompson, 26 S.E.2d 411, 203 S.C. 106, 1943 S.C. LEXIS 84 (S.C. 1943).
26 S.E.2d 411 (Rush v. Thompson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Civil Action No.: 2001-CP-32-0711 Carolina Water Service, Inc. v. Lexington County Joint Municipal Water & Sewer Commission
625 S.E.2d 227 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2006)
Van Every v. Chinquapin Hollow, Inc.
219 S.E.2d 909 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1975)
Dillon County v. Maryland Cas. Co.
67 S.E.2d 306 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1951)
Morris v. Lambert
62 S.E.2d 841 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1950)
Rush v. Thompson
38 S.E.2d 7 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1946)