Ouzts v. McKnight
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Shipp, J., Florence, January, 1920. Action by Mary McKnight Ouzts against W. B. McKnight. Judgment for defendant and plaintiff appeals. cite: No true partition was had, between the parties as a mistake arose in applying the terms to the subject matter, and such a mistake will be corrected: 50 S. C. 1; 2 Pom. Eq.
Read the full summary
Before Shipp, J., Florence, January, 1920. Action by Mary McKnight Ouzts against W. B. McKnight. Judgment for defendant and plaintiff appeals. cite: No true partition was had, between the parties as a mistake arose in applying the terms to the subject matter, and such a mistake will be corrected: 50 S. C. 1; 2 Pom. Eq. Jur., sec. 853. No question of adverse possession arises as there has never been an actual ouster: 71 S. C. 518. Possession must be actual, visible, exclusive, adverse, hostile and continuous to constitute adverse possession: 40 S. C. R. (6 Rich.) 62; 2 Corp. Jur. 50, 122; 86…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Gage.
The parties hereto are children of the same parents. Their controversy is about 75 acres of land, intermediate, two parcels confessedly owned by each, thus not accurately but illustratively:
The plaintiff owns X; the defendant owns Z; Y is in issue betwixt them.
The disagreement arose out of these circumstances, alleged in the complaint: The parties owned the whole parcel of about 1,000 acres as tenants in common, and they undertook in 1908 to partition it in kind. A surveyor was employed to that end, and commissioners in partition were…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Weston v. MorganSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1931
- Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. SearsonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1926
- Lynch v. LynchSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1960
- Klapman v. HookSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1945
- Lusk v. CallahamCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1986
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.