Reports of Cases Heard and Determined by the Supreme Court of South Carolina Volume 2 (Paperback)


This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1872 edition. Excerpt: ...public safety" called for emancipation--right of eminent domain annexed to sovereign power, and by its exercise private property can be disposed of without compensation.--Vattel, 112. The sovereign takes by prerogative, and not by title paramount.--Black Com., Book 2, p. 239. 4. Government interference in the execution of contracts does not impair their validity or obligation.--Atkinson vs. Ritchie, 10 East., 530; Sjoerds vs. Lmcomb, l6 East., 201; Bright vs. Page, 2 Bos. & Pull., 295; Hardy vs. Clark, 8 Term, 259; Caradine vs. Jane, Ibid; Boyles vs. Fettyplace, 8 Mass., 330; Toutong vs. Hub-Columbia, April, 1870. bard, 3 Bos. & Pull., 291; Rose vs. McLeod, 2 Bay., 108; Stent vs. Bailis, "2 P. 1V., 217; Loss produced by vis mnjor fulls on vendee or lessee.--Story Eii. Jurisp., 101, et seq.; Bullock vs Dormit, 6 Term, 650; White vs. Nutt, 1 P. W., 61; Mortimer vs. Copper, Bro. Rep., 156; Paine vs. Miller, 6 Ves., Jr., 349; Rugg vs. Minott, 11 East., 210; Story Eq. Jurisp., 101,1307; Sugdea on Vendors, 174; 2 Powell on Contracts, 61, 70. These cases afford analogies. 5. The State Convention of 1868 acted on the belief South Carolina was not a "State of the Union." Congress did not indubitably speak out.--McPherson's Hand-book of Politics for 1868, pp. 191, 837, where Reconstruction Acts collected. The point settled 1869, in the ease of The State of Texa vs. White and othern.--Am. Law Rep., Lead Cases, 2 V., p. 84. The highest law tribunal in America held, notwithstanding the rebellion, Texas was at all times a "State of the Union." " No State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts."--10 Sec., Art. 1, Const. U.S., and Art. 6; Rutland vs. Copes, 15 Rich. Law, 116; Bank of Dubuque vs. State of Iowa, 12...

R972

Or split into 4x interest-free payments of 25% on orders over R50
Learn more

Discovery Miles9720
Mobicred@R91pm x 12* Mobicred Info
Free Delivery
Delivery AdviceOut of stock

Toggle WishListAdd to wish list
Review this Item

Product Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1872 edition. Excerpt: ...public safety" called for emancipation--right of eminent domain annexed to sovereign power, and by its exercise private property can be disposed of without compensation.--Vattel, 112. The sovereign takes by prerogative, and not by title paramount.--Black Com., Book 2, p. 239. 4. Government interference in the execution of contracts does not impair their validity or obligation.--Atkinson vs. Ritchie, 10 East., 530; Sjoerds vs. Lmcomb, l6 East., 201; Bright vs. Page, 2 Bos. & Pull., 295; Hardy vs. Clark, 8 Term, 259; Caradine vs. Jane, Ibid; Boyles vs. Fettyplace, 8 Mass., 330; Toutong vs. Hub-Columbia, April, 1870. bard, 3 Bos. & Pull., 291; Rose vs. McLeod, 2 Bay., 108; Stent vs. Bailis, "2 P. 1V., 217; Loss produced by vis mnjor fulls on vendee or lessee.--Story Eii. Jurisp., 101, et seq.; Bullock vs Dormit, 6 Term, 650; White vs. Nutt, 1 P. W., 61; Mortimer vs. Copper, Bro. Rep., 156; Paine vs. Miller, 6 Ves., Jr., 349; Rugg vs. Minott, 11 East., 210; Story Eq. Jurisp., 101,1307; Sugdea on Vendors, 174; 2 Powell on Contracts, 61, 70. These cases afford analogies. 5. The State Convention of 1868 acted on the belief South Carolina was not a "State of the Union." Congress did not indubitably speak out.--McPherson's Hand-book of Politics for 1868, pp. 191, 837, where Reconstruction Acts collected. The point settled 1869, in the ease of The State of Texa vs. White and othern.--Am. Law Rep., Lead Cases, 2 V., p. 84. The highest law tribunal in America held, notwithstanding the rebellion, Texas was at all times a "State of the Union." " No State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts."--10 Sec., Art. 1, Const. U.S., and Art. 6; Rutland vs. Copes, 15 Rich. Law, 116; Bank of Dubuque vs. State of Iowa, 12...

Customer Reviews

No reviews or ratings yet - be the first to create one!

Product Details

General

Imprint

Rarebooksclub.com

Country of origin

United States

Release date

April 2013

Availability

Supplier out of stock. If you add this item to your wish list we will let you know when it becomes available.

First published

April 2013

Authors

Dimensions

246 x 189 x 13mm (L x W x T)

Format

Paperback - Trade

Pages

242

ISBN-13

978-1-154-08721-5

Barcode

9781154087215

Categories

LSN

1-154-08721-2



Trending On Loot