State Ex Rel. Sherfesee v. McMaster

Supreme Court of South Carolina

State Ex Rel. Sherfesee v. McMaster

77 S.E. 402, 94 S.C. 382, 1913 S.C. LEXIS 93

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedMarch 15, 1913

Docket8531a

StatusPublished

This text of 77 S.E. 402 (State Ex Rel. Sherfesee v. McMaster) 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

State Ex Rel. Sherfesee v. McMaster, 77 S.E. 402, 94 S.C. 382, 1913 S.C. LEXIS 93 (S.C. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Chief Justice Gary.

This case was heard in connection with the case of The State of South Carolina, Bx Relatione Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance Company, a body corporate under the laws of the State of Connecticut, having its principle place of business in the city of Hartford, in the State of Connecticut, and duly licensed to do business in the State of South Carolina, petitioner, against Fitz FI. McMaster, as Insurance Commissioner of the State of South Carolina, respondent, in which the opinion has just been filed.

*383 The facts in the two cases are similar, and the reasons assigned in that case are conclusive of the questions in this case.

It is, therefore, the judgment of this Court that the application for a writ of mandamus be refused, and the appeal dismissed.

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.

This case was heard in connection with the case of The State of South Carolina, Bx Relatione Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance Company, a body corporate under the laws of the State of Connecticut, having its principle place of business in the city of Hartford, in the State of Connecticut, and duly licensed to do business in the State of South Carolina, petitioner, against Fitz FI. McMaster, as Insurance Commissioner of the State of South Carolina, respondent, in which the opinion has just been filed.

*383 The facts in the two cases are similar, and the reasons assigned in that case are conclusive of the questions in this case.

It is, therefore, the judgment of this Court that the application for a writ of mandamus be refused, and the appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 S.E. 402, 94 S.C. 382, 1913 S.C. LEXIS 93, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-sherfesee-v-mcmaster-sc-1913.