The Mobley Co. v. McLucas

82 S.E. 986, 99 S.C. 99, 1914 S.C. LEXIS 75
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedSeptember 24, 1914
Docket8945
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 82 S.E. 986 (The Mobley Co. v. McLucas) 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
The Mobley Co. v. McLucas, 82 S.E. 986, 99 S.C. 99, 1914 S.C. LEXIS 75 (S.C. 1914).

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Chief Justice Gary.

This is an appeal from an order of reference, which, the appellants contend, deprived them of a mode of trial to which they were entitled by law, to wit, a trial by jury.

The action is to foreclose a mortgage of certain lands, which was executed by tíie defendant, R. M. McLucas, to *100 secure the payment of a promissory note, made by the defendants in favor of the plaintiff in consideration of fertilizers, which the plaintiff agreed to advance to the defendant, R. M. McEucas, for agricultural purposes.

The defendants answered the complaint, setting up failure of consideration; and, by way of affirmative relief, interposing a counterclaim for damages, alleged to have been sustained by the defendants, on account of the plaintiff’s failure to perform its part of the contract.

The following authorities show that the appeal should be dismissed: McLaurin v. Hodges, 43 S. C. 187, 20 S. E. 991; Hunt v. Nolen, 46 S. C. 551, 24 S. E. 543; Hardware Co. v. Washington, 47 S. C. 187, 25 S. E. 45; McCullough v. Kirven, 49 S. C. 445, 27 S. E. 456; Insurance Assn. v. Berry, 53 S. C. 129, 31 S. E. 53; Gregory v. Perry, 66 S. C. 455, 45 S. E. 4; Ex parte Landrum, 69 S. C. 136, 48 S. E. 47; Pratt v. Timmerman, 69 S. C. 186, 48 S. E. 255; Engine Co. v. Lodge, 73 S. C. 533, 53 S. E. 993; Shute v. Shute, 79 S. C. 420, 60 S. E. 961; Machinery Co. v. Hamilton, 89 S. C. 438, 71 S. E. 1029; Welborn v. Cobb, 92 S. C. 384, 75 S. E. 691.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Related

Collier v. Green
137 S.E.2d 277 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1964)
Aiken Mortgage Company v. Jones
15 S.E.2d 119 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1941)
Farley, Rec'r v. Matthews
167 S.E. 502 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1933)
Armour Fertilizer Works v. Burckhalter
139 S.E. 465 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1927)
Sumter Hardwood Co. v. Fitchette
130 S.E. 881 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1925)
Murph v. Smoak
101 S.E. 844 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1920)
National City Bank v. Huey & Martin Drug Co.
102 S.E. 516 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1920)
Rainwater v. Merchants & Farmers Bank
93 S.E. 770 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1917)
Bank of Williston v. Alderman
91 S.E. 296 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1917)
Hand v. Kelly
86 S.E. 382 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1915)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
82 S.E. 986, 99 S.C. 99, 1914 S.C. LEXIS 75, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-mobley-co-v-mclucas-sc-1914.