Login
  • Bookmark
  • PDF
  • Share
  • CaseIQ

TUCKER v. COX

Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Aug 26, 1915
Judgment
Subsequent
References
CaseIQ
Case Information
CITATION CODES
citation codes
DOCKET NO.

9181

Attorney(S)

Mr. D.H. Hill, for appellant, cites: Executed contract: 2 N. McC. 581; 10 Am. Dec. 638. In pari delicto: 1 Bail. 588; 2 Hill 625; 2 McMull. 356; 2 Strob. 117; 102 N.Y. 372; 55 Am. Rep. 815; 32 Am. Dec. 223; 2 Brev. 27; 11 Rich. L. 643; 29 S.C. 116. Property delivered to compound a felony cannot be recovered: 67 Ala. 92; 30 Ga. 547; 11 Minn. 255; 15 Barb. 541; 80 N.Y. 627. Mr. J.M. Nickles, for respondent, cites: 44 S.C. 538; 1 Bail. 588; 2 Hill 625; 2 McMull. 356; 2 Strob. 117; Chev. 177; 29 S.C. 116; 51 S.C. 362; 9 Cyc. 244; Pom. Eq. Juris. 941; 20 S.C. 736; 32 Cyc. 1251.

JUDGES

MR. JUSTICE FRASER, concurring.

ACTS

No Acts

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

August 26, 1915. The opinion of the Court was delivered by

MR. JUSTICE GAGE.Page 483

We are satisfied with the opinion of the Circuit Court, and it is affirmed.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE GARY and MR. JUSTICE WATTS concur in the opinion of the Court.

MR. JUSTICE FRASER, concurring.

I concur in the result. It seems to me that the trust deed was a mere security for a debt, and, therefore, a mortgage.

MR. JUSTICE HYDRICK dissents.

© 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