Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1923

Marlboro Cotton Mills v. Stirling Hosiery Mills

Marlboro Cotton Mills v. Stirling Hosiery Mills
Supreme Court of South Carolina · Decided November 5, 1923 · Watts
119 S.E. 900; 126 S.C. 343; 1923 S.C. LEXIS 186 (South Eastern Reporter)

Counsel

Messrs. J.K. Owens and J.W. LeGrand , for appellant. cite: Existing law is part of contract: 6 R.C.L., 243. Contract for "requirements" without specifying quantity is void: 57 L.R.A., 696; 262 Fed., 280. Messrs. McColl Stevenson for respondent.

Marlboro Cotton Mills v. Stirling Hosiery Mills

Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Watts.

For the reasons assigned by ITon. R D. Lide, Special Judge, it is the judgment of this Court that the judgment *346 of the Circuit Court be affirmed, as the letters and orders introduced in the cause show confirmation of sale and meeting of the minds of the parties, and the question of damages in this case is settled by the stipulation of the parties.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.