Charles v. Byrd
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Hudson, J., Darlington, The appeal was from the following decree, omitting its statement : In the contract of lease I can find no ambiguity, patent or latent.
Read the full summary
Before Hudson, J., Darlington, The appeal was from the following decree, omitting its statement : In the contract of lease I can find no ambiguity, patent or latent. The stipulations are all plainly and clearly expressed, and embrace the usual covenants looking to the enforcement of good husbandry, such as are expected to be, and usually required to be, performed by tenants of farms and plantations; the only special engagement being as to the building of a house on the place, and this is no more than any good tenant is capable of doing or having done. I can see nothing in the terms of the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Mr. Justice McIver.
Some time prior to the 1st day of January, 1887, the precise date not being stated, the appellant and one II. C. Byrd entered into a written agreement, of which the following is a copy :
“The following agreement has been made between Mrs. C. A. Charles on the one part, and Mr. H. O. Byrd on the other
“1. Mrs. Charles agrees to rent to H. C. Byrd for five years from January 1st, 1887, her plantation on Back Swamp, except *549twenty acres reserved for the use of Philip Backus, on the following terms:
“2. Mr. Byrd agrees to see that all land…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Jackson ex dem. Schuyler v. CorlissNew York Supreme Court · 1811
3Cited by15 opinions
- Feldman v. South Carolina Tax CommissionSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1943
- McMillan v. McMillanSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1907
- Miller v. ReadyIndiana Court of Appeals · 1915
- Columbia Ry., Gas & Electric Co. v. JonesSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1922
- Walton County v. DeanCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1918
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.