Tenny v. Anderson Water, Light & Power Co.
Decision Date | 07 July 1903 |
Citation | 45 S.E. 111,67 S.C. 11 |
Parties | TENNY v. ANDERSON WATER, LIGHT & POWER CO. et al. |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Anderson County; Watts Judge.
Proceeding to enforce a mechanic's lien by Geo. A. Tenny against the Anderson Water, Light & Power Company, the State Trust Company, and the Morton Trust Company. From circuit order plaintiff appeals. Modified.
Mordecai & Gadsden, Quattlebaum & Cothran, and Bonham & Watkins, for appellant. Tribble & Prince and Haynesworth, Parker & Patterson, for respondents.
On the 9th day of May, 1902, the plaintiff caused a summons in the usual form and a "petition or complaint to enforce mechanic's lien" to be served on the defendant Anderson Water, Light & Power Company. The amount alleged to be due under the lien is $28,967.82. The Anderson Water Light & Power Company answered, setting up several defenses First, that the petitioner had failed and refused to comply with his contract; second, that the statement attached to the lien is fraudulent; and, third, a counterclaim for damages alleged to have been sustained by the Anderson Water, Light & Power Company by reason of the failure of the petitioner to construct the dam in a proper manner, amounting to $87,600. The plaintiff replied to the counterclaim, and denied its allegations. Subsequently the plaintiff gave notice of a motion to strike out so much of the defendant's answer as set up a counterclaim on the following grounds , to wit: Upon hearing the motion, his honor the circuit judge ordered that said motion "be and is hereby refused, without prejudice to the right of the plaintiff to renew his motion to restrict or limit the extent of the recovery under said counterclaim to the amount claimed under the plaintiff's complaint herein, so as to extinguish the same, if he be so advised, without intimating any opinion on this latter point." The plaintiff appealed from said order upon exceptions which practically present the question whether a counterclaim can be set up in a proceeding to enforce a mechanic's lien.
As the solution of this question is dependent upon the terms of the statute, we will quote such parts thereof as are material to the consideration of the question. The sections correspond with those in the Code of Laws:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
National Loan & Exchange Bank of Columbia v. Argo Development Co.
... ... followed." In the case of Tenney v. Anderson [141 ... S.C. 77] Water, Light & Power Co., 67 S.C. 11, ... ...
-
Atlantic Coast Lumber Corp. v. Morrison
... ... Johnson v ... Frazee, 20 S.C. 500; Tenney v. Water Power Co., ... 67 S.C. 11, 45 S.E. 111; Metz v. Critcher, ... 143; Farmers' Union Mercantile Co. v ... Anderson, 108 S.C. 66, 93 S.E. 422 ... Since ... ...
-
Metz v. Critcher
... ... In the ... case of Tenney v. Water Power Co., 67 S.C. 11, 45 ... S.E. 111, this court, after ... light of the finding of the jury ... The ... ...
-
Tenney v. Anderson Water, Light & Power Co.
...set-off or recoupment to the plaintiff's petition to set up a mechanic's lien. The case has been before this court once before. See 67 S.C. 11, 45 S.E. 111. question presented on that appeal was solved by the announcement of the following conclusions: "(1) That while the plaintiff may maint......