Tuten v. McAlhaney
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Prince, J., Hampton, February, 1916. Action by John Tuten and others against H. F. McAl- . haney, L. R. Bishop and another. Judgment for plaintiffs against McAlhaney, and for Bishop, and McAlhaney appealed. The decree of Judge Prince referred to is as follows: This action came on to be heard before me at Hampton, S. C., at the Spring, 1916, term of Court. Certain issues of fact were, by consent of counsel, framed by the Court and submitted to a jury.
Read the full summary
Before Prince, J., Hampton, February, 1916. Action by John Tuten and others against H. F. McAl- . haney, L. R. Bishop and another. Judgment for plaintiffs against McAlhaney, and for Bishop, and McAlhaney appealed. The decree of Judge Prince referred to is as follows: This action came on to be heard before me at Hampton, S. C., at the Spring, 1916, term of Court. Certain issues of fact were, by consent of counsel, framed by the Court and submitted to a jury. Testimony on such issues, oral and documentary, was taken. The following are the issues which were submitted to the jury by the Court for…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Fraser.
“This is an action brought by the heirs at law of William M. Tuten, deceased, to set aside a deed made by him to H. F. McAlhaney on August 14, 191.4, on the grounds of incapacity of the grantor, fraud and misrepresentation on the part of the grantee and want of consideration. The action sought to set aside, also, a deed made by H. F. McAlhaney to T. R. Bishop on November 9, 1914, covering 100 acres of the premises included in deed from Tuten to McAlhaney on the alleged ground that McAlhaney and Bishop conspired to defraud the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Page v. LewisSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1943
- Carmichael v. CarmichaelSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1918