Logourl black
From our private database of 13,000+ case briefs...

Talbot v. James

Supreme Court of South Carolina
190 S.E.2d 759 (1972)


Facts

C.N. Talbot (Talbot) (plaintiff), Lula Talbot (plaintiff), and W.A. James (defendant) formed Chicora Apartments, Inc. in 1963. The purpose of the corporation was to build and operate an apartment complex. James negotiated for a construction loan that was to be insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). The board of Chicora Apartments, which consisted of James and Talbot, passed a resolution authorizing James to enter into the loan agreement and any other agreement FHA might require, including a construction agreement. The next day, on November 6, 1963, James executed a contract on behalf of Chicory Apartments with James Construction, which was James’ personal construction company. James ultimately received $25,025 from the loan proceeds as payment for his company’s work. The structure was completed in July 1964. By 1968 the business was in distress, and James and Talbot disagreed about its future direction. James himself took control of day-to-day management, replacing the manager Talbot had hired. Talbot then discovered the contract with James Construction, and sued for an accounting. At trial, James testified that he had informed Talbot that he would do the construction himself, though this was not reflected in the minutes. Talbot testified that he was not informed of the contract. A master at the trial court level credited Talbot’s testimony and found that James was not entitled to the money his company earned from the construction contract. The appellate court reversed. The Talbots now appeal.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Holding and Reasoning (Moss, C.J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Dissent (Bussey, J.)

The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 128,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,000 briefs, keyed to 176 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.