Sutton v. Clark
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Blnlt, J., Chesterfield, November, 1899. Action for possession of land by Jas. F. Sutton against E. C. Clark, J. M. Clark, W. A. Clark, G. N. Clark, Eleanor Knight and Mary Knight.
Read the full summary
Before Blnlt, J., Chesterfield, November, 1899. Action for possession of land by Jas. F. Sutton against E. C. Clark, J. M. Clark, W. A. Clark, G. N. Clark, Eleanor Knight and Mary Knight. From verdict and judgment for defendant, plaintiffs appeal. cite: Objection that action was not commenced within statutory period must be taken by answer: 9 S. C., 94; 16 S. C., 386; 3 S. E. R., 63. Defendant must show that plaintiff was not in possession: 14 S. C., 189. Defendants cannot tack their possession to make out statutory period: 48 S. C., 45; 29 S. C., 392; 28 S. C., 489; 16 S. C., 132; 14 S. C.,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Gary.
This action was commenced on the first day of March, 1899, for the recovery of certain reai property hereinafter mentioned. As some of the cjuestíons raised by the exceptions require reference to the pleadings to determine w'hat issues were involved, it is deemed necessary to set out a copy of the complaint and answer. The complaint was as follows: “The plaintiff above named by his complaint shows: I. That he is the owner in fee simple and entitled to the possession of all that certain piece, parcel or tract of land, situate, lying and…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Nelson v. BrodhackSupreme Court of Missouri · 1869
- Hill v. BaileyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1879
3Cited by12 opinions
- Kidd v. BrowneSupreme Court of Alabama · 1917
- Young v. McNeillSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1907
- Miller v. LeairdSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1992
- South Norwalk Lodge, No. 709 v. Palco Hats, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1953
- Mitchell v. ClevelandSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1907
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.