Osteen v. Bultman
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Shipp, J., Sumter, July, 1911. Action by C. P. Osteen and H. G. Osteen against F. A. Bultman and J. H. Cunningham. Defendants appeal. Messrs.
Read the full summary
Before Shipp, J., Sumter, July, 1911. Action by C. P. Osteen and H. G. Osteen against F. A. Bultman and J. H. Cunningham. Defendants appeal. Messrs. Lee & Moise cite: The order is appealable: 34 S. C. 169; 65 S. C. 455; 49 S. C. 435. Respondents are estopped from claiming the effects of lis pendens: 35 Cyc. 1453; 114 N. C. 151. cites: Defendants are not entitled to jury trial: 43 S. C. 187; 53 S. C. 139; 47 S. C. 453; Code Proc. 274; 37 S. C. 169; 43 S. C. 192; 69 S. C. 186; 66 S. C. 459; 70 S. C. 253. Was lien created by the deed and subsequent act. of the parties? 72 S. C. 32; 16 S. C. 384;…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Watts.
This action was commenced on September 1, 1910, by service of summons and complaint, and Us pendens was duly filed. The defendants answered, and subsequently the defendants conveyed the real estate referred to in the complaint by warranty deed, which was duly recorded, and thereafter having been granted an order by his Honor, Judge Shipp, on June 13, 1911, served their supplemental answer, setting up the fact that they had parted with their title to the land described in the complaint. Within ten days after the service of the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Neal v. SuberSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1899
- Pruitt v. PruittSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1900
3Cited by1 opinion
- Erskine v. ErskineSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1917