Amaker v. New
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before PIudsoN, J., Orangeburg, September, 1889. This was an action by J. PI. Amaker against Frances New and Pickens New, to recover 158 acres of land, commenced March 18, 1887. The case is thus fully stated in the dissenting opinion of the Chief Justice: This is a contest over a tract of land of 158J acres, situate in Orangeburg County.
Read the full summary
Before PIudsoN, J., Orangeburg, September, 1889. This was an action by J. PI. Amaker against Frances New and Pickens New, to recover 158 acres of land, commenced March 18, 1887. The case is thus fully stated in the dissenting opinion of the Chief Justice: This is a contest over a tract of land of 158J acres, situate in Orangeburg County. Both parties claim from a common source, and the question below was, which had the better title ? The facts, so far as necessary to be stated here, were as follows: one Absalom Inabnet, in 1866, was indebted to several parties; among them to one N. E. W.…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Mr. Justice McIver.
I understand it to be well settled that an existing creditor who wishes to subject property to the payment of his debt, which has been conveyed by his debtor by a voluntary deed to another, before judgment obtained, has two remedies, to either of which he may resort, to wit: he may disregard the conveyance as fraudulent and void, and proceed to sell the property under his execution, leaving the validity of the deed to be determined in an action by. the purchaser at'such sale *34to recover possession of the land; or he may, by an action…
2Cited by17 opinions
- Eckert v. WendelTexas Supreme Court · 1931
- Payne v. BeaumontCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1922
- Young v. WilsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1936
- Louisville Banking Co. v. BuchananCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1904
- Terry v. BaskinTexas Commission of Appeals · 1932
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.