Login
  • Bookmark
  • PDF
  • Share
  • CaseIQ

MOORE v. POWER CO

Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Mar 11, 1904
Judgment
Subsequent
References
CaseIQ
Case Information
CITATION CODES
citation codes
Attorney(S)

Messrs. Geo. W. Hart and D.W. Robinson, for appellant. The former cites: 45 S.C. 280; 83 Ala., 381; 75 Wis. 224; 81 Wis. 358; 66 S.C. 487; 15 S.C. 456; 170 U.S. 670. Mr. Robinson cites: 60 L.R.A., 630; 27 N.W., 662; 191 U.S. 26; 170 U.S. 665; 58 L.R.A., 340; 66 S.C. 487, 13; 65 S.C. 223; 53 Fed.R., 306; 35 S.C. 383; 60. C., 73. Mr. A.G. Brice, contra, cites: 6 Ency. P. P., 265; 23 Cal., 111; 44 Kan., 370; 109 N.C. 692; 65 N.C. 207; 98 N.C. 89; 109 N.C. 692.

ACTS

No Acts

See more information ... Less ...
Important Paras
Please sign up to view Important Paras.

March 11, 1904. The opinion of the Court was delivered by

MR. JUSTICE WOODS.

We do not think this case can be distinguished in principle from Lynch v. Spartan Mills, 66 S.C. 12. The views there expressed are in accord with the decisions of other Courts. Monahan v. Northwestern Contracting Co., 84 Wis. 586, 54 N.W., 1025; Carey v. Ry. Co., 67 Wis. 608, 31 N.W., 163; Ry. Co. v. Templeton, 87 Tex., 42; 26 S.W. 1066; Cox v. Providence Gas Co., 17 R.I. 199, 21 Atl., 344; Preston v. R.R. Co., 64 Vt., 280, 25 Atl., 486. The motion to make the complaint more definite and certain should have been refused.

The judgment of this Court is, that the judgment of the Circuit Court be reversed.

© 2026 Gauge Data Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

x

Alert

Please log in or sign up for a free trial to access this feature.
Sign Up Login
x