green
Positive treatment
Issue: Brady violationAL ↗
Issue: lesser included offense instructionAL ↗
Issue: accomplice liability doctrineAL ↗
Issue: reviewing claimAL ↗
Quoted verbatim 4×
9.5 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1996 ·
…if the language is as precise as the subject matter permits, the courts can demand no more
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 48 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Modine Manufacturing Company v. United States International Trade Commission
if the language is as precise as the subject matter permits, the courts can demand no more
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Modine Manufacturing Co. v. United States International Trade Commission
if the language is as precise as the subject matter permits, the courts can demand no more
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Allen Organ Company, Cross-Appellee v. Kimball International, Inc., MacMillan Inc., and Conn Keyboards, Inc., Cross-Appellants
in reviewing a decision denying a motion for judgment n.o.v. ... we review the evidence as a whole, and ascertain whether the verdict is in accordance with law, and whether there was substantial evidence in support of the jury's verdict
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Sandifer v. State
while this failure to object does not preclude review in a capital case, it does weigh against any claim of prejudice.
cited
Cited "see"
Hocker v. State
See Ex parte Kennedy , 472 So.2d 1106 (Ala.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 975 , 106 S.Ct. 340 , 88 L.Ed.2d 325 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
Wynn v. State
See Ex parte Kennedy, 472 So.2d 1106 (Ala.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 975 , 106 S.Ct. 340 , 88 L.Ed.2d 325 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
Flowers v. State
See Ex parte Kennedy, 472 So.2d 1106 (Ala.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 975 , 106 S.Ct. 340 , 88 L.Ed.2d 325 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
West v. State
See Ex parte Kennedy, 472 So.2d 1106 (Ala.), cert. *874 denied, 474 U.S. 975 , 106 S.Ct. 340 , 88 L.Ed.2d 325 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
Smith v. State
See Ex parte Kennedy, 472 So.2d 1106 (Ala.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 975 , 106 S.Ct. 340 , 88 L.Ed.2d 325 (1985)." Williams v. State, 795 So.2d 753, 762 (Ala.Cr.App.1999).
cited
Cited "see"
James v. State
See Ex parte Kennedy , 472 So.2d 1106 (Ala.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 975 , 106 S.Ct. 340 , 88 L.Ed.2d 325 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
Williams v. State
See Ex parte Kennedy, 472 So.2d 1106 (Ala.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 975 , 106 S.Ct. 340 , 88 L.Ed.2d 325 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
Wilson v. State
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Ex parte Kennedy, 472 So.2d 1106 (Ala.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 975 , 106 S.Ct. 340 , 88 L.Ed.2d 325 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
Mehl/Biophile International Corp. v. Milgraum
See Shatterproof Glass Corp. v. Libbey-Owens Ford Co., 758 F.2d 613, 619 (Fed.Cir.), cert. dismissed, 474 U.S. 976 , 106 S.Ct. 340 , 88 L.Ed.2d 326 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
General Elec. Co. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd.
See Shatterproof Glass Corp. v. Libbey-Owens Ford Co., 758 F.2d 613, 619 (Fed.Cir.), cert. dismissed, 474 U.S. 976 , 106 S.Ct. 340 , 88 L.Ed.2d 326 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
Hoechst Celanese Corporation v. Bp Chemicals Limited and Sterling Chemicals, Inc.
See Shatterproof Glass Corp. v. Libbey-Owens Ford Co., 758 F.2d 613 , 225 USPQ 634 (Fed.Cir.), ce rt. dismissed, 474 U.S. 976 , 106 S.Ct. 340 , 88 L.Ed.2d 326 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
Therma-Tru Corporation v. Peachtree Doors Inc., Acme Sliding Door, Inc. D/B/A Edwards Wholesale, and Village Door, Defendants/cross-Appellants
(2×)
See Shatterproof Glass Corp. v. Libbey-Owens Ford Co., 758 F.2d 613, 618 , 225 USPQ 634, 636 (Fed.Cir.), cert. dismissed, 474 U.S. 976 , 106 S.Ct. 340 , 88 L.Ed.2d 326 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
Messerschmidt v. United States
See Shatterproof Glass Corp. v. Libbey-Owens Ford Co., 758 F.2d 613, 624 (Fed.Cir.1985) (noting that “[t]he amount of detail required to be included in claims depends on the particular invention and the prior art, and is not to be viewed in the abstract but in conjunction with whether the specification is in compliance with the first paragraph of section 112.”), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 976 , 106 S.Ct. 340 , 88 L.Ed.2d 326 (1985); Georgia-Pac.
cited
Cited "see"
Stewart v. State
See Ex parte Kennedy , 472 So.2d 1106 (Ala.), cert. *Page 494 denied, 474 U.S. 975 , 106 S.Ct. 340 , 88 L.Ed.2d 325 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
Haney v. State
See Kennedy v. State, 472 So.2d 1092 (Ala.Cr.App.1984), aff'd, 472 So.2d 1106 (Ala.1985), cert, denied, 474 U.S. 975 , 106 S.Ct. 340 , 88 L.Ed.2d 325 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
Hagood v. State
See Bankhead , citing Kennedy v. State , 472 So.2d 1092 (Ala.Cr.App.), aff'd, 472 So.2d 1106 (Ala. 1984), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 975 , 106 S.Ct. 340 , 88 L.Ed.2d 325 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
Lummus Industries, Inc., Appellee/cross-Appellant v. D.M. & E. Corporation, and MacHine Development Corporation, Appellants/cross-Appellees
See Shatterproof Glass Corp. v. Libbey-Owens Ford Co., 758 F.2d 613, 627 , 225 USPQ 634, 643 (Fed.Cir.), cert. dismissed, 474 U.S. 976 , 106 S.Ct. 340 , 88 L.Ed.2d 326 (1985); Weinar v. Rollform, Inc., 744 F.2d 797, 809 , 223 USPQ 369, 376 (Fed.Cir.1984) (“submission of interrogatories is not in all cases an unmixed blessing”), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1084 , 105 S.Ct. 1844 , 85 L.Ed.2d 143 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
Ryco, Inc., Plaintiff/counterdefendant/appellant v. Ag-Bag Corporation, Defendant/counterclaimant/cross-Appellant v. Kelly P. Ryan and Blair Manufacturing Company, Counterdefendants/appellants, Richard H. Lee and David H. Rasmussen
See Shatterproof Glass Corp. v. Libbey-Owens Ford Co., 758 F.2d 613, 628 , 225 USPQ 634, 644 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 976 , 106 S.Ct. 340 , 88 L.Ed.2d 326 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp.
See Shatterproof Glass Corp. v. Libbey-Owens Ford Co., 758 F.2d 613, 628 , 225 USPQ 634, 644 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 976 , 106 S.Ct. 340 , 88 L.Ed.2d 326 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
Avia Group International, Inc., (Formerly Pensa, Inc.) v. L.A. Gear California, Inc.
See Shatterproof Glass Corp. v. Libbey-Owens Ford Co., 758 F.2d 613, 628 , 225 USPQ 634, 644 (Fed.Cir.), cert. dismissed, 474 U.S. 976 , 106 S.Ct. 340 , 88 L.Ed.2d 326 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
Windsurfing International, Inc. v. Fred Ostermann GmbH
See Shatterproof Glass Corp. v. Libbey-Owens Ford Co., 758 F.2d 613, 628 (Fed.Cir.), cert. dismissed, 474 U.S. 976 , 106 S.Ct. 340 , 88 L.Ed.2d 326 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
Richard J. Menge v. The Burton Company
See Shatterproof Glass Corp. v. Libbey-Owens Ford Co., 758 F.2d 613, 618-19 , 225 USPQ 634, 636 (Fed.Cir.), cert. dismissed, 106 S.Ct. 340 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
Mainland Industries, Inc. v. Standal's Patents Ltd., and Roderick E. MacDonald as of the Estate of George M. Standal
See Shatterproof Glass Corp. v. Libbey-Owens Ford Co., 758 F.2d 613, 627 , 225 USPQ 634, 643 (Fed.Cir.), ce rt. dismissed, — U.S.-, 106 S.Ct. 340 , 88 L.Ed.2d 326 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Brown v. State
Kuenzel, supra; see also Ex parte Kennedy, 472 So.2d 1106 (Ala.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 975 , 106 S.Ct. 340 , 88 L.Ed.2d 325 (1985). “ ‘ “A capital punishment scheme, under which the same felony may form the basis of an essential element of the crime and an aggravating circumstance for consideration by the jury in recommending a sentence, does not constitute a denial of the guarantee against double jeopardy.” “ ‘Kuenzel, 577 So.2d at 488, quoting Fortenberry v. State, 545 So.2d 129, 142 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), aff'd, 545 So.2d 145 (Ala.1989), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 911 , 110 S.Ct. 1937…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ex Parte Belisle
See also Ex parte Brown, 548 So.2d 993, 994 (Ala.1989) ("This Court has held in Ex parte Kennedy, 472 So.2d 1106 (Ala.1985), cert. den., Kennedy v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 975 , 106 S.Ct. 340 , 88 L.Ed.2d 325 (1985), that a defendant must demonstrate, first, that the State suppressed the evidence, and, second, that the evidence suppressed was favorable to the defendant or exculpatory, and, finally, that the evidence was material.”). 5 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Harris v. State
Kuenzel, supra; see also Ex parte Kennedy, 472 So.2d 1106 (Ala.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 975 , 106 S.Ct. 340 , 88 L.Ed.2d 325 (1985). “1 “ ‘A capital punishment scheme, under which the same felony may form the basis of an essential element of the crime and an aggravating circumstance for consideration by the jury in recommending a sentence, does not constitute a denial of the guarantee against double jeopardy.’ “ ‘ “Kuenzel, 577 So.2d at 488, quoting Fortenberry v. State, 545 So.2d 129, 142 (Ala.Crim.App.1988), aff'd, 545 So.2d 145 (Ala.1989), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 911 , 110 S.C…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Jones v. State
Kuenzel , supra; see also Ex parte Kennedy , 472 So.2d 1106 (Ala.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 975 , 106 S.Ct. 340 , 88 L.Ed.2d 325 (1985). "`"A capital punishment scheme, under which the same felony may form the basis of an essential element of the crime and an aggravating circumstance for consideration by the jury in recommending a sentence, does not constitute a denial of the guarantee against double jeopardy." "` Kuenzel , 577 So.2d at 488 , quoting Fortenberry v. State , 545 So.2d 129 , 142 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988), aff'd, 545 So.2d 145 (Ala. 1989), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 911 , 110 S.Ct. 1937 , 109…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lee v. State
Kuenzel, supra; see also Ex parte Kennedy, 472 So.2d 1106 (Ala.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 975 , 106 S.Ct. 340 , 88 L.Ed.2d 325 (1985). "`"A capital punishment scheme, under which the same felony may form the basis of an essential element of the crime and an aggravating circumstance for consideration by the jury in recommending a sentence, does not constitute a denial of the guarantee against double jeopardy." "` Kuenzel, 577 So.2d at 488, quoting Fortenberry v. State, 545 So.2d 129, 142 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), aff'd, 545 So.2d 145 (Ala.1989), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 911 , 110 S.Ct. 1937 , 109 L.Ed.2d…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Peraita v. State
Kuenzel, supra; see also Ex parte Kennedy, 472 So.2d 1106 (Ala.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 975 , 106 S.Ct. 340 , 88 L.Ed.2d 325 (1985). "`"A capital punishment scheme, under which the same felony may form the basis of an essential element of the crime and an aggravating circumstance for consideration by the jury in recommending a sentence, does not constitute a denial of the guarantee against double jeopardy." "` Kuenzel, 577 So.2d at 488, quoting Fortenberry v. State, 545 So.2d 129, 142 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), aff'd, 545 So.2d 145 (Ala.1989), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 911 , 110 S.Ct. 1937 , 109 L.Ed.2d…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Barksdale v. State
Kuenzel , supra; see also Ex parte Kennedy , 472 So.2d 1106 (Ala.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 975 , 106 S.Ct. 340 , 88 L.Ed.2d 325 (1985). "`A capital punishment scheme, under which the same felony may form the basis of an essential element of the crime and an aggravating circumstance *Page 914 for consideration by the jury in recommending a sentence, does not constitute a denial of the guarantee against double jeopardy.' " Kuenzel , 577 So.2d at 488, quoting Fortenberry v. State , 545 So.2d 129 , 142 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988), aff'd, 545 So.2d 145 (Ala. 1989), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 911 , 110 S.Ct. 193…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Jackson v. State
Kuenzel, supra; see also Ex parte Kennedy, 472 So.2d 1106 (Ala.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 975 , 106 S.Ct. 340 , 88 L.Ed.2d 325 (1985). "`"A capital punishment scheme, under which the same felony may form the basis of an essential element of the crime and an aggravating circumstance for consideration by the jury in recommending a sentence, does not constitute a denial of the guarantee against double jeopardy." " ` Kuenzel, 577 So.2d at 488, quoting Fortenberry v. State, 545 So.2d 129, 142 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), aff'd, 545 So.2d 145 (Ala.1989), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 911 , 110 S.Ct. 1937 , 109 L.Ed.2…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Maples v. State
Kuenzel, supra; see also Ex parte Kennedy, 472 So.2d 1106 (Ala.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 975 , 106 S.Ct. 340 , 88 L.Ed.2d 325 (1985). "`"A capital punishment scheme, under which the same felony may form the basis of an essential element of the crime and an aggravating circumstance for consideration by the jury in recommending a sentence, does not constitute a denial of the guarantee against double jeopardy." "` Kuenzel, 577 So.2d at 488, quoting Fortenberry v. State, 545 So.2d 129, 142 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), aff'd, 545 So.2d 145 (Ala.1989), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 911 , 110 S.Ct. 1937 , 109 L.Ed.2d…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Smith v. State
Kuenzel, supra; see also Ex parte Kennedy, 472 So.2d 1106 (Ala.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 975 , 106 S.Ct. 340 , 88 L.Ed.2d 325 (1985). "`"A capital punishment scheme, under which the same felony may form the basis of an essential element of the crime and an aggravating circumstance for consideration by the jury in recommending a sentence, does not constitute a denial of the guarantee against double jeopardy." "` Kuenzel, 577 So.2d at 488, quoting Fortenberry v. State, 545 So.2d 129, 142 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), aff'd, 545 So.2d 145 (Ala.1989), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 911 , 110 S.Ct. 1937 , 109 L.Ed.2d…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Stewart v. State
Kuenzel, supra; see also Ex parte Kennedy, 472 So.2d 1106 (Ala.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 975 , 106 S.Ct. 340 , 88 L.Ed.2d 325 (1985). "`"A capital punishment scheme, under which the same felony may form the basis of an essential element of the crime and an aggravating circumstance for consideration by the jury in recommending a sentence, does not constitute a denial of the guarantee against double jeopardy." "` Kuenzel, 577 So.2d at 488, quoting Fortenberry v. State, 545 So.2d 129, 142 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), aff'd, 545 So.2d 145 (Ala.1989), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 911 , 110 S.Ct. 1937 , 109 L.Ed.2d…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Price v. State
Kuenzel, supra; see also Ex parte Kennedy, 472 So.2d 1106 (Ala.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 975 , 106 S.Ct. 340 , 88 L.Ed.2d 325 (1985). "`"A capital punishment scheme, under which the same felony may form the basis of an essential element of the crime and an aggravating circumstance for consideration by the jury in recommending a sentence, does not constitute a denial of the guarantee against double jeopardy." "` Kuenzel, 577 So.2d at 488, quoting Fortenberry v. State, 545 So.2d 129, 142 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), aff'd, 545 So.2d 145 (Ala.1989), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 911 , 110 S.Ct. 1937 , 109 L.Ed.2d…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Boyd v. State
Kuenzel , supra; see also Ex parte Kennedy , 472 So.2d 1106 (Ala.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 975 , 106 S.Ct. 340 , 88 L.Ed.2d 325 (1985). " 'A capital punishment scheme, under which the same felony may form the basis of an essential element of the crime and an aggravating circumstance for consideration by the jury in recommending a sentence, does not constitute a denial of the guarantee against double jeopardy.' " Kuenzel , 577 So.2d at 488, quoting Fortenberry v. State , 545 So.2d 129 , 142 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988), aff'd, 545 So.2d 145 (Ala. 1989), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 911 , 110 S.Ct. 1937 , 109 L…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hutcherson v. State
Kuenzel, supra; see also Ex parte Kennedy, 472 So.2d 1106 (Ala.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 975 , 106 S.Ct. 340 , 88 L.Ed.2d 325 (1985). "`A capital punishment scheme, under which the same felony may form the basis of an essential element of the crime and an aggravating circumstance for consideration by the jury in recommending a sentence, does not constitute a denial of the guarantee against double jeopardy.' " Kuenzel, 577 So.2d at 488, quoting Fortenberry v. State, 545 So.2d 129, 142 (Ala. Cr.App.1988), aff'd, 545 So.2d 145 (Ala. 1989), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 911 , 110 S.Ct. 1937 , 109 L.Ed.2d…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Taylor v. State
See also Ex parte Kennedy, 472 So.2d 1106, 1111 (Ala.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 975 , 106 S.Ct. 340 , 88 L.Ed.2d 325 (1985) (emphasis in Kennedy).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Windsor v. State
Kuenzel , supra; see also Ex parte Kennedy , 472 So.2d 1106 (Ala.), cert. denied , 474 U.S. 975 , 106 S.Ct. 340 , 88 L.Ed.2d 325 (1985). " 'A capital punishment scheme, under which the same felony may form the basis of an essential element of the crime and an aggravating circumstance for consideration by the jury in recommending a sentence, does not constitute a denial of the guarantee against double jeopardy.' " Kuenzel , 577 So.2d at 488, quoting Fortenberry v. State , 545 So.2d 129 , 142 (Ala.Cr.App. 1988), aff'd , 545 So.2d 145 (Ala. 1989), cert. denied , 495 U.S. 911 , 110 S.Ct. 1937 , 10…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Burton v. State
Kuenzel , supra; see also Ex parte Kennedy , 472 So.2d 1106 (Ala.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 975 , 106 S.Ct. 340 , 88 L.Ed.2d 325 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ex Parte Walker
Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence , § 220.01 (4th ed. 1991); see also Kennedy v. State , 472 So.2d 1092 , 1099 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984), aff'd, 472 So.2d 1106 (Ala.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 975 , 106 S.Ct 340 , 88 L.Ed.2d 325 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc.
See, e.g., Shatterproof Glass Corp. v. Libbey-Owens Ford Co., 758 F.2d 613, 619 , 225 USPQ 634, 636 (Fed.Cir.), cert. dismissed, --- U.S. ----, 106 S.Ct. 340 , 88 L.Ed.2d 326 (1985); Railroad Dynamics, Inc. v. A. Stucki Co., 727 F.2d 1506, 1512 , 220 USPQ 929, 936 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 871 , 105 S.Ct. 220 , 83 L.Ed.2d 150 (1984). 111 In this case, substantial evidence supports the jury's finding (question No. 24) of willful infringement.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc.
See, e.g., Shatterproof Glass Corp. v. Libbey-Owens Ford Co., 758 F.2d 613, 619 , 225 USPQ 634, 636 (Fed.Cir.), cert. dismissed, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 340 , 88 L.Ed.2d 326 (1985); Railroad Dynamics, Inc. v. A. Stucki Co., 727 F.2d 1506, 1512 , 220 USPQ 929, 936 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 871 , 105 S.Ct. 220 , 83 L.Ed.2d 150 (1984).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Williams v. State
See also Ex parte Kennedy , 472 So.2d 1106 , 1112-13 (Ala.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 106 S.Ct. 340 , 88 L.Ed.2d 325 (1985).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ellis
v.
Jenkins.
v.
Jenkins.
9599.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Feb 9, 1917.
Mr. N.W. Hardin , for appellant, cites: As to liens on crops: Civil Code, sec. 4164; 96 S.C. 313 . Conversion of cotton: Civil Code, sec. 3542; 70 S.C. 487 ; 96 S.C. 313 ; 102 S.C. 508 . Remedy of creditor: 3 Pom. Eq. Juris., sec. 1414; 24 S.C. 533 and 534; 18 S.C. 431 ; 1 Story Eq. Juris., sec. 633; 3 Rich. L. 132. Duty of paramount creditor: 100 S.C. 6 ; 14 A. E. Enc. of L. 698. Power of Court on appeal: Code Civ. Proc., sec. 407, subd. 5; 80 S.C. 524 .
Mr. G.W. Speer , for respondent, cites: As landlord's lien: Code Civ. Proc., sec. 4162. Duty of Court on appeal: 87 S.E. 639 . Record as notice: 85 S.E. 900 . Insufficiency of evidence: 75 S.E. 370; 85 S.E. 238. Findings in law cases: 73 S.C. 189 ; 75 S.E. 696 ; 76 S.E. 32 and 117; 71 S.E. 1009 ; 73 S.E. 340 . Subsequent creditors: Civil Code, sec. 3542; 102 S.C. 508 . Two fund doctrine not applicable: 88 S.E. 380 .
Watts.
Published
[*341] The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Watts.This is an appeal from an order of his Honor, Judge Rice, reversing a judgment in magistrate’s Court and giving judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff brought his action in magistrate’s Court, claiming he had a mortgage over the crop of a subtenant on defendant’s land for advances, and that defendant had collected cotton in excess of his rent which should be applied to plaintiff’s mortgage, and refused to pay over the same. The evidence in the case reported as taken before the magistrate is vague, meager, and unsatisfactory. It is admitted that the landlord, Jenkins, the defendant herein, rented his place to Cloniger for 7 bales of cotton, each to weigh 500 pounds, and Cloniger sublet part of the place to Curry for 1,000 pounds lint cotton. The plaintiff contends that the defendant received 14 bales of cotton instead of 7, and defendant denies that he received any cotton in excess of his rent. It might have been better if his Honor in the exercise of his power had recommitted the case to the magistrate to have clarified this issue, and had it made clear just how much cotton was made and turned over to and received by the landlord, but his Honor did not see fit to do so, and we cannot say that it was erroneous on his part. He had enough before him to determine this issue, and by his order'he decided in favor of the defendant and adverse to the contention of the plaintiff, and his finding has sufficient evidence to sustain it.
Exceptions overruled, and judgment affirmed.