State v. Seabrook

20 S.E. 58, 42 S.C. 74, 1894 S.C. LEXIS 35
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedJuly 27, 1894
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 20 S.E. 58 (State v. Seabrook) 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 v. Seabrook, 20 S.E. 58, 42 S.C. 74, 1894 S.C. LEXIS 35 (S.C. 1894).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Mr. Chief Justice McIver.

The object of this action is to recover damages for the breach of the condition of a bond given by the defendants to the plaintiff, a copy of which was filed with the complaint as an exhibit thereto, and is set out in the “Case.” The bond bears date the 1st of May, 1885, and after reciting that a license has been issued to the defendant Seabrook, granting a general right to dig and mine phosphate rock and phosphatic deposits agreeably to an act of the General Assembly, entitled “An act to establish a system of general rights to dig and mine phosphate rock and phosphatic deposits in the navigable streams and waters of the State, and to provide a mode of ascertaining and of protecting the interests of the State therein,” approved 24th of December, 1878, binds the said Seabrook to make true returns to the comptroller general of the number of tons of phosphate rock “dug, mined, and removed, and shipped or otherwise sent to market,” by said Seabrook, at the end of every month, and also to pay to the state treasurer, at the end of every quarter or three months (the quarters beginning to run on the 1st of January in each year), the royalty provided by law to be paid thereon, to wit: one dollar upon each and every ton which has not been steamed or kiln-dried.”

The breach alleged in the complaint of the condition of this bond is that the said Seabrook did not pay to the plaintiff the [76]*76royalty due on five hundred and twenty-two 413-2240 tons of phosphate rock, alleged to have been dug, mined, removed, and shipped to market by said Seabrook during the month of October, 1885, “as will appear by reference to the return of the said Joseph W. Seabrook, made to the comptroller general, a copy of which is hereto annexed, marked B, as part of the complaint.” This return, precisely as set out in the “Case,” should be incorporated in the report of this case. The only defence set up by the answer was a general denial. By consent, the issues in the action were referred to the master for trial; and at the first reference, after the execution of the bond had been proved by one of the subscribing witnesses, counsel for defendants interposed an oral demurrer upon the ground that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The master overruled the demurrer, and defendants gave notice of appeal from that ruling. “After discussion, the reference was adjourned to await result of the appeal. Mr. Verdier (counsel for defendants), abandoning his appeal to the Supreme Court,” the reference was subsequently resumed, when the testimony set out in the “Case” on behalf of the plaintiff was taken, and the defendants offering no testimony, the reference was closed.

The master subsequently made his report, in which he found as matter of fact, that the bond set out in the complaint was duly executed by the defendants; that the said Seabrook, under the license recited in the bond, did dig, mine, remove, and ship to market five hundred and tw’enty-two 413-2240 tons of. phosphate rock and deposits, taken during the month of October, 1885, from the navigable waters of the State; that said Seabrook has not paid the royalty due thereon; and that said royalty amounts to $522.19, no part of which has been paid. And he found as matter of law that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment against defendants for the said sum of $522.19, with interest thereon from the 1st day of January, 1886, and for the costs of this action. To this report the exceptions set out in the “Case” were filed by the defendants; and upon this report and exceptions, the case came before his honor, Judge Witherspoon, for hearing,, who, without going

[77]

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

Related

Cohen v. MAYFLOWER COPR.
86 S.E.2d 860 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1955)
Bank of Timmonsville v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.
120 F. 315 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of South Carolina, 1903)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
20 S.E. 58, 42 S.C. 74, 1894 S.C. LEXIS 35, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-seabrook-sc-1894.