Wilkins v. Baker
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Action by E. R. Wilkins against C. B. Baker and M. A. Baker. From Circuit decree in favor of M. A. Baker, plaintiff appeals. cite : Married woman may be estopped by acts and declarations: 22 Pac., 605; 48 Am. R., 438; 52 Fed., 627; 20 Pa.
Read the full summary
Action by E. R. Wilkins against C. B. Baker and M. A. Baker. From Circuit decree in favor of M. A. Baker, plaintiff appeals. cite : Married woman may be estopped by acts and declarations: 22 Pac., 605; 48 Am. R., 438; 52 Fed., 627; 20 Pa. St., 299; 21 Cyc., 1399. And she is nozv estopped from claiming title to this land: 16 Cyc., 777, 762, 770; 94 Ga., 231; 80 Ga., 776; 13 S. C., 370; 25 S. C., 555; 8 S. E., 799; 11 Ency., 421, 431. cite: Invalid renunciation is binding: Code, 1902,.2384; 16 S. C., 91. If renunciation did not induce plaintiff to act, there is no estoppel: 49 S. C., 477; 13 S.…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. ChiEE Justice Pope.
On the 23d of January, 1901, C. B. Baker, one of the defendants herein, executed and delivered to E. E. Wilkins, the plaintiff, his bond for the penal sum of twelve hundred and sixty dollars conditioned to pay the amount of six hundred and thirty dollars one year after date, with interest at eight per cent. To secure its payment, Baker executed and delivered to plaintiff a mortgage on a certain tract of land described in the mortgage, and containing two hundred acres, more or less. There was a provision in the mortgage that…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Colgate & Co. v. Latta & MyattSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1894
- Gaston v. BrandenburgSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1894
- Holland v. JonesSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1897
3Cited by2 opinions
- Bank of Jennings v. JenningsSupreme Court of Florida · 1916
- Battle v. DevaneSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1927