Strickland v. Strickland

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtHYDRICK, J
Citation95 N. C. 492,79 S.E. 520
PartiesSTRICKLAND. v. STRICKLAND et al.
Decision Date06 October 1913

79 S.E. 520
(95 N. C. 492)

STRICKLAND.
v.
STRICKLAND et al.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Oct. 6, 1913.


1. Appeal and Error (§ 425*)—Notice of Appeal—Time for Service.

Where a judgment was filed after adjournment for the term, and no notice thereof was given to the unsuccessful party, a notice of appeal served by his attorney 11 days after the filing of the judgment was in time under Code Civ. Proc. 1912, § 384, giving parties 10 days after the service upon them of notice of judgment entered in vacation in which to serve notice of intention to appeal.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 2155-2161; Dec. Dig. § 425.*]

2. Partnership (§ 279*) — Retirement of Partner—Assumption of Obligations by Other Partners—Effect Upon Creditors —Action—Venue.

Where a partnership composed of three individuals, which had contracted a debt, was dissolved prior to the institution of suit upon the debt, and it was agreed that two of the partners should assume the debts of the partnership, that agreement did not affect the rights of the creditor to hold the retiring partner; and therefore a justice in the county where the retiring partner resided had jurisdiction of an action against all three for the amount of the debt.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Partnership, Cent. Dig. §§ 636, 637; Dee. Dig. § 279.*]

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Colleton County; R. W. Memminger, Judge.

Action by J. F. Strickland against W. W. Strickland and others, formerly copartners doing business as the Fairfax Furniture Company. Judgment for the defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Padgett, Lemacks & Moorer, of Walter-boro, for appellant.

J. M. Patterson, of Allendale, for respondents.

HYDRICK, J. [1, 2] The respondents moved to dismiss this appeal on the ground that the notice of appeal was not served within the time required by law. From the affida vits we gather these facts: The cause was heard in term time, but the court reserved its decision, and it was filed after the court had adjourned for the term, on July 12, 1912. On July 23, 1912, notice of appeal was served on respondents' attorney by J. Henry Johnson, Esq., who makes affidavit that he delivered to him and left with him a copy thereof. As the parties have 10 days after the service upon them of written notice of the filing of orders, decrees, or judgments granted or rendered at chambers or filed in vacation (see Code of Procedure 1912, § 384, and cases cited in the note, and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • First Nat. Bank Of Holly Hill v. Hair, No. 15401.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 1, 1942
    ...Carolina Land & Timber Co., 168 S.C. 18, 166 S.E. 626, 628, this Court said: "In Strickland v. Strickland, 95 S.C. 492, 79 S.E. 520, 521, the court says: 'In such cases, when the court has properly acquired jurisdiction of the parties, the rendition of a judgment in favor of the pa......
  • South Carolina Dept. of Mental Health v. Glass, No. 20465
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • July 13, 1977
    ...the time within which an appeal may be taken. Lake v. Moore, 12 S.C. 563, 563-564 (1879). See also Strickland v. Strickland, 95 S.C. 492, 79 S.E. 520 (1913); O'Neal v. Atlas Assurance Company of London, England, 168 S.C. 174, 167 S.E. 227 (1933); Braun v. City of Aiken, 247 S.C. 18, 145 S.E......
  • Halsey v. Minn.-south Carolina Land & Timber Co, No. 13517.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • November 18, 1932
    ...authority a court can disregard such an imperative mandate from the law-making power." In Strickland v. Strickland, 95 S. C. 492, 79 S. E. 520, 521, the court says: "In such cases, when the court has properly acquired jurisdiction of the parties, the rendition of a judgment in fav......
  • Darby v. Southern Ry. Co, (No. 9809.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • September 25, 1917
    ...counties, the action may be brought against all of them in the county of the residence of either. Strickland v. Strickland, 95 S. C. 492, 79 S. E. 520. The second and third grounds of demurrer were properly sustained. The) complaint stated three separate and distinct causes of action: First......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • First Nat. Bank Of Holly Hill v. Hair, No. 15401.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 1, 1942
    ...Carolina Land & Timber Co., 168 S.C. 18, 166 S.E. 626, 628, this Court said: "In Strickland v. Strickland, 95 S.C. 492, 79 S.E. 520, 521, the court says: 'In such cases, when the court has properly acquired jurisdiction of the parties, the rendition of a judgment in favor of the pa......
  • South Carolina Dept. of Mental Health v. Glass, No. 20465
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • July 13, 1977
    ...the time within which an appeal may be taken. Lake v. Moore, 12 S.C. 563, 563-564 (1879). See also Strickland v. Strickland, 95 S.C. 492, 79 S.E. 520 (1913); O'Neal v. Atlas Assurance Company of London, England, 168 S.C. 174, 167 S.E. 227 (1933); Braun v. City of Aiken, 247 S.C. 18, 145 S.E......
  • Halsey v. Minn.-south Carolina Land & Timber Co, No. 13517.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • November 18, 1932
    ...authority a court can disregard such an imperative mandate from the law-making power." In Strickland v. Strickland, 95 S. C. 492, 79 S. E. 520, 521, the court says: "In such cases, when the court has properly acquired jurisdiction of the parties, the rendition of a judgment in fav......
  • Darby v. Southern Ry. Co, (No. 9809.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • September 25, 1917
    ...counties, the action may be brought against all of them in the county of the residence of either. Strickland v. Strickland, 95 S. C. 492, 79 S. E. 520. The second and third grounds of demurrer were properly sustained. The) complaint stated three separate and distinct causes of action: First......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT