Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
6 opinions for “Bernard v. Theil”
Simmons v. Mark Lift Industries, Inc.public domain
366 S.C. 308 (2005) 622 S.E.2d 213 James SIMMONS, Plaintiff, v. MARK LIFT INDUSTRIES, INC.; Mark Industries, Inc.; Terex Corporation; BPS Equipment Rental and Sales, Inc.; and Prime Equipment and Rental Service Corporation, Defendants. No. 26050. Supreme Court of South Carolina. Heard April 7, 2005. Decided October 24, 2005.
Community National Bank & Trust Co. v. Josephpublic domain
— In an action to recover on a promissory note, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Felig, J.), dated October 22, 1985, as granted the cross motion of the defendants Bernard and Edith Joseph to vacate judgment of the same court, entered August 14, 1984, in favor of the plaintiff and against them. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Armour v. Armourpublic domain
Steueb, J. There are three actions before the court. Each of the actions is by the trustee of an inter vivos trust and sought,originally, approval of his accounts. The settlor of each of the trusts was Bernard R. Armour. The trustee is his brother, George L. Armour. The life tenant of the first trust is the. settlor’s sister Geraldine R. Theil and the remaindermen are the settlor’s daughters, Ruth, Rachel and Toby Armo
Armour v. Broadmanpublic domain
Cohn, J. (dissenting). At the time of the execution of the alleged compromise agreements, the three infants affected thereby were over the age of fourteen years; Ruth Armour was twenty years of age; Rachel Armour was nineteen and Toby Armour was sixteen. Under paragraph (b) of subdivision 4 of rule 294 of the Rules of Civil Practice it is required that the acknowledged consents of infants over the age of fourteen years whose right
Armour v. Armourpublic domain
Judgment affirmed, with one bill of costs to all respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs payable out of the trust fund; no opinion. Concur: Lewis, Ch. J., Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld, Froesset. and Van Voorhis, JJ.
Rroctor v. Richardsonpublic domain
Bullard, J., delivered the opinion of the court. The petition sets forth, that Reggio sold to Wood and Richardson certain tracts of land, in the parish of St. Bernard; that shortly afterwards Wood sold to his co-proprietor, Richardson, his undivided, moiety of the land, with that of one hundred and fifty slaves, among whom were forty-four declared to have been purchased by them of Carter; that on t