GRAY v. THOMAS et al

Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Report a problem

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

13297

Attorney(S)

Messrs. Padgett Moorer and J. Heyward Jenkins, attorneys for Estate of Edwin Denby, appellants, cite: Mutual promise constitutes valuable consideration: 124 S.C. 68; 117 S.E., 356; 158 S.E., 635; 159 S.E., 365; 160 S.C. 188; 158 S.E., 272. Power of bank officials during thirty-day liquidation period: 123 S.C. 1; 115 S.E., 812; 150 S.C. 220; 147 S.E., 863; 141 S.C. 370; 139 S.E., 793; 144 S.C. 147; 142 S.E., 239; 148 S.C. 100; 145 S.E., 706. Waiver: 40 C.J., 256. Party may be estopped to plead fraud by own carelessness: 129 S.C. 226; 123 S.E., 845; 146 S.C. 385; 144 S.E., 82. Holder in due course of negotiable note has protection of mortgage: 97 S.C. 136; 26 S.C. 506; 134 S.C. 237; 117 S.C. 140; 91 S.C. 455. Mr. W. Brantley Harvey, for respondent.

Are you a practicing lawyer?

Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.

Upload pleading to use the new AI search

Click here to upload

Cites

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

13297

Attorney(S)

Messrs. Padgett Moorer and J. Heyward Jenkins, attorneys for Estate of Edwin Denby, appellants, cite: Mutual promise constitutes valuable consideration: 124 S.C. 68; 117 S.E., 356; 158 S.E., 635; 159 S.E., 365; 160 S.C. 188; 158 S.E., 272. Power of bank officials during thirty-day liquidation period: 123 S.C. 1; 115 S.E., 812; 150 S.C. 220; 147 S.E., 863; 141 S.C. 370; 139 S.E., 793; 144 S.C. 147; 142 S.E., 239; 148 S.C. 100; 145 S.E., 706. Waiver: 40 C.J., 256. Party may be estopped to plead fraud by own carelessness: 129 S.C. 226; 123 S.E., 845; 146 S.C. 385; 144 S.E., 82. Holder in due course of negotiable note has protection of mortgage: 97 S.C. 136; 26 S.C. 506; 134 S.C. 237; 117 S.C. 140; 91 S.C. 455. Mr. W. Brantley Harvey, for respondent.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

GRAY v. THOMAS ET AL.

December 10, 1931. The opinion of the Court was delivered by

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BLEASE.

It is the opinion of this Court that the decree of his Honor, Circuit Judge Bonham, which will be reported, correctly disposed of the issues involved in the cause. Accordingly, the exceptions of the appellant are overruled, and the decree is affirmed.

MESSRS. JUSTICES STABLER and CARTER and C.C. FEATHERSTONE, CIRCUIT JUDGE, concur.

MR. JUSTICE COTHRAN did not participate on account of illness.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

GRAY v. THOMAS ET AL.

Comments