Chapman v. Greenville Chamber of Com., 120 S.E. 584 (1923). · Go Syfert
Search
Chapman v. Greenville Chamber of Com., 120 S.E. 584 (1923). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
41 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Sare v. Sheridan County Board of County Commissioners (wyo, 1989-12-19)
Treatment trajectory · 1926 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1926 1976 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Sare v. Sheridan County Board of County Commissioners (6×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Wyo. · 1989 · confidence medium
"The dedication was not to Greenville county, but to the public at large, though the land is situated in the county of Greenville and in the city of Greenville." Id. at 586.
discussed Cited "see" Helsel v. City of North Myrtle Beach (2×)
S.C. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Chapman v. Greenville Chamber of Commerce, 127 S.C. 173 , 120 S.E. 584 (1923).
cited Cited "see" People's National Bank of Greenville v. Greenville County
S.C. · 1934 · signal: see · confidence high
See Chapman v. Greenville Chamber of Commerce, 127 S. C., 173, 120 S. E., 584 .
Chapman
v.
Greenville Chamber of Commerce Et Al
Aug 20, 1923.
120 S.E. 584
Mr. W.G. Sirrine , for plaintiff-appellant, cites: Act 1923 is unconstitutional , Const. 1895, Art. 3, Sec. 31. Mr. Oscar K. Mauldin , for Greenville County, appellant, cites: Dedication: 7 A. E Enc L., 43; 5 Strob., 217; 8 R.C.L., 834; 27 L.R.A. (N.S.), 875. Greenville County chartered: 7 Stat., 245. Court House authorized: 5 Stat., 230. City of Greenville incorporated: 6 Stat., 434. Land must be used for purpose for which it was dedicated: 8 R.C.L., 910, 911; 48 N.E., 927; 61 Pac., 237; 2 S.W. 130; 22 Pac., 528; 23 Am. Dec., 207; 97 Am. Dec., 696; 35 L.R.A. (N.S.), 603. Chamber of Commerce is a private corporation: 7 A. E Enc. L., 637, 638. Unlawful for city to go into hotel business: 42 S.C. 427 ; 41 S.C. 220 ; 57 N.W., 331 Messrs. L.O. Patterson and Stephen Nettles , for Greenville Chamber of Commerce, respondent, cite: No limit on power of city to vacate portion of street: 3 Dillon Mun. Corp., 5th Ed., 1122, 1128, 1138, 1160, 1197; Ell. Roads Streets, 3d Ed., 609, 543, 1177, 1182, 1183; 13 R.C.L., 67. Vacation is authorized by Legislature in this case: 33 Stat., 688. Test is whether use serves public good and advantage: 115 S.E., 596 ; 115 S.C. 108 .
Watts.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Watts.

For the reasons assigned by his Honor, Judge Mauldin, in his Circuit decree, it is the judgment of this Court that the judgment of the Circuit Court be affirmed.