TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Gibbes MacHinery Co. v. Hamilton

Gibbes MacHinery Co. v. Hamilton.

Gibbes MacHinery Co. v. Hamilton, 71 S.E. 1029 (S.C. 1911)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of South Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
August 10, 1911
Docket
No. 7998
Judges
PIydrick
Citations
71 S.E. 102989 S.C. 4381911 S.C. LEXIS 294
Disposition
Affirmed.
Syllabus
Issues — -Foreclosure.'—Defendant is not entitled to a trial by jury in an action for foreclosure of a mortgage on machinery by the assignee when he sets up the defenses, misrepresentation, breach of warranty of the condition of the machinery, failure of consideration, and a counterclaim for damages for fraud and collusion between plaintiff and his assignor.
Summary
Before J. Wm. Thurmond, Special Judge, Hampton, June, 1910. Action by Gib'bes Machinery Company against W. T. Hamilton ’and International Harvester Company of America. Defendant Hamilton appeals. cite: Judge should not refer issues for trial without consent: 64 S. C. 393; 34 S. C. 169. Issues here should be tried on calendar of issues of fact: Code of Proc. 373; 35 S. C. 80.

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

Opinion of the Court — PIydrick

The opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Justice PIydrick.

In an action for foreclosure by the assignee of a mortgage given to secure the purchase price of machinery, defendant, the mortgagor, denied the ¡allegations of the complaint, and set up, as affirmative defenses, misrepresentation and breach of warranty of the condition of machinery, failure of consideration-, and a counterclaim for damages for fraud and collusion between plaintiff and his assignor, the original mortgagee, in obtaining the mortgage from defendant.

.Held, that defendant was not *439 entitled to a trial by jury.

Bouland v. Garpin, 27 S. C. 235, 3 S. E.

219; McLaurin v. Hodges, 43 S. C. 187, 20 S. E. 991 ;

Pratt v. Timmerman, 69 S. C. 186, 48 S. E. 255 .

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1914: 11924: 119142026peak 1914 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Young v. Vail222 P. 912 (N.M. 1924)
  2. The Mobley Co. v. McLucas82 S.E. 986 (S.C. 1914)

Most recent

  1. Young v. Vail222 P. 912 (N.M. 1924)
  2. The Mobley Co. v. McLucas82 S.E. 986 (S.C. 1914)

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 3

DepthCaseCited by
McLaurin v. Hodges, 20 S.E. 991 (S.C. 1895) 17
Pratt v. Timmerman, 48 S.E. 255 (S.C. 1904) 10
Bouland v. Carpin, 3 S.E. 219 (S.C. 1887) 5

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