Summerton Live Stock Co. v. Early

96 S.E. 518, 111 S.C. 154, 1918 S.C. LEXIS 98
Supreme Court of South Carolina·Decided August 15, 1918·No. 10071·Published

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. ChieeJustice Gary.

*155 This is an appeal from an order refusing a motion to set aside an attachment, on the ground that the written undertaking required by the statute was not signed by the plaintiff, but only by another party as surety, before the warrant was issued.

There were no' facts showing that the principle announced in the following cases is not applicable to the cause under consideration: Bank v. Stelling, 31 S. C. 360, 9 S. E. 1028; Wagener v. Booker, 31 S. C. 375, 9 S. E. 1055; Booker v. Smith, 38 S. C. 228, 16 S. E. 774; Hampton v. Bogan, 55 S. C. 547, 33 S. E. 581.

Reversed.

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

Summerton Live Stock Co. v. Early, 96 S.E. 518, 111 S.C. 154, 1918 S.C. LEXIS 98 (S.C. 1918).

96 S.E. 518 (Summerton Live Stock Co. v. Early) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

National Exchange Bank v. Stelling
9 S.E. 1028 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1889)
Wagener v. Booker
9 S.E. 1055 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1889)
Booker v. Smith
16 S.E. 774 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1893)
Hampton Bros. v. Bogan
33 S.E. 581 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1899)