Goforth v. Goforth
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Action in partition by Wm. P. Goforth against Martha Goforth. The facts are fully set forth in the following report of the referee, W. W. Tewis: The above stated cause having been referred to me by his Honor, Judge Benet, to try all the issues of law and fact, and to report on the same to this Court, I beg leave to submit the following as my report: I held a reference at Blacksburg, S. C., on the 10th day of September, 1895; present, the attorneys of record.
Read the full summary
Action in partition by Wm. P. Goforth against Martha Goforth. The facts are fully set forth in the following report of the referee, W. W. Tewis: The above stated cause having been referred to me by his Honor, Judge Benet, to try all the issues of law and fact, and to report on the same to this Court, I beg leave to submit the following as my report: I held a reference at Blacksburg, S. C., on the 10th day of September, 1895; present, the attorneys of record. The testimony taken is herewith respectfully submitted. (1) I find, as a matter of fact, that in the year 1878, Martha Goforth, the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Gary.
This is an action for partition of the land described in the- complaint. The plaintiff alleges that he and the defendant each are seized and possessed in fee of one-half of said lands by reason of a deed of conveyance executed in March, 1878, and recorded in April, 1878. *133The defendant in her answer alleges that the said deed was fraudulent and void, in that it was made to her and the plaintiff jointly, instead of to her alone; that her money was used in paying for the land, and that, therefore, there was a resulting trust in her favor.…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Payne v. BeaumontCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1922
- Louisville Banking Co. v. BuchananCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1904
- Turner v. PoolSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1914