TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

The Mobley Co. v. McLucas

The Mobley Co. v. McLucas.

The Mobley Co. v. McLucas, 82 S.E. 986 (S.C. 1914)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of South Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
September 24, 1914
Docket
No. 8945
Judges
Gary
Citations
82 S.E. 98699 S.C. 991914 S.C. LEXIS 75
Disposition
Appeal dismissed.
Syllabus
Trial. Issues. Reference. Appeal and Error. The defendant is not entitled to a jury trial of issues raised by plea of failure of consideration, and counterclaim alleged to grow out of plaintiff’s failure to perform its contract, in an action for foreclosure of a mortgage to secure purchase money of fertilizers sold by plaintiffs to defendants for agricultural purposes; and an appeal from an order of reference in such case should be dismissed.
Summary
Before Spain, J., Bennettsville, February, 1914. Action by The Mobley Company against R. M. McLucas and Effie McLucas. The facts are stated in the opinion. submit: No issues were asked under C. C. Rule 28: 76 S. C. 507. Order proper: 27 S. C. 235; 79 S. C. 269, 427; 69 S. C. 186, and in discretion of Judge: 76 S. C. 507.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Gary

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.

Footnote. — As to constitutional right to trial by jury in equitable actions on account of demand for damages, see note in 15 L. R. A. 287, and supplementary note in L. R. A. Extra Annotations, 2 vol. 287; as to the application to other than common law cases, see 1 L. R. A. 481, and in 1 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cases 703.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →
1915: 11917: 21920: 21925: 11927: 11933: 11941: 11964: 119152026peak 1917 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Collier v. Green137 S.E.2d 277 (S.C. 1964)
  2. Bank of Williston v. Alderman91 S.E. 296 (S.C. 1917)
  3. National City Bank v. Huey & Martin Drug Co.102 S.E. 516 (S.C. 1920) · Dissent
  4. Rainwater v. Merchants & Farmers Bank93 S.E. 770 (S.C. 1917)
  5. Sumter Hardwood Co. v. Fitchette130 S.E. 881 (S.C. 1925)
  6. Aiken Mortgage Company v. Jones15 S.E.2d 119 (S.C. 1941)

Most recent

  1. Collier v. Green137 S.E.2d 277 (S.C. 1964)
  2. Aiken Mortgage Company v. Jones15 S.E.2d 119 (S.C. 1941)
  3. Farley, Rec'r v. Matthews167 S.E. 502 (S.C. 1933)
  4. Armour Fertilizer Works v. Burckhalter139 S.E. 465 (S.C. 1927)
  5. Sumter Hardwood Co. v. Fitchette130 S.E. 881 (S.C. 1925)
  6. Murph v. Smoak101 S.E. 844 (S.C. 1920)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 11

DepthCaseCited by
Welborn v. Cobb, 75 S.E. 691 (S.C. 1912) 17
McLaurin v. Hodges, 20 S.E. 991 (S.C. 1895) 17
Pratt v. Timmerman, 48 S.E. 255 (S.C. 1904) 10
Farmers' Mut. Ins. Ass'n of Edgefield v. Berry, 31 S.E. 53 (S.C. 1898) 10
Ex Parte Landrum, 48 S.E. 47 (S.C. 1904) 9
Gregory v. Perry, 45 S.E. 4 (S.C. 1903) 8
Hunt v. Nolen, 24 S.E. 543 (S.C. 1896) 6
Sullivan Hardware Co. v. Washington, 25 S.E. 45 (S.C. 1896) 5
Shute v. Shute, 60 S.E. 961 (S.C. 1908) 3
Gibbes MacHinery Co. v. Hamilton, 71 S.E. 1029 (S.C. 1911) 2
McCullough & Blackwell v. Kervin, 27 S.E. 456 (S.C. 1897) 1

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list