Charleston, &c., R. R. v. Leech
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Wallace, J., York, April, 1893. The case was brought to this court by plaintiff on the following exceptions: I. Because his honor erred in holding that'the bill cannot be sustained in its present shape; and erred in dismissing the original and supplemental complaints, and vacating the order of injunction. II.
Read the full summary
Before Wallace, J., York, April, 1893. The case was brought to this court by plaintiff on the following exceptions: I. Because his honor erred in holding that'the bill cannot be sustained in its present shape; and erred in dismissing the original and supplemental complaints, and vacating the order of injunction. II. Because his honor erred in holding that the heirs at law of Mrs. M. E. Leech did not take the land, or her interest in it, emn onere, and were not bound (as she was bound) to afford plaintiff every reasonable facility for the beneficial use of the easement granted by its grantor…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Mr. Chief Justice McIver.
This is the third appeal in this case, the first having been reported in 33 S. C., 175, and the second in 35 S. C., 146, where the general nature of the case and of the facts may be found. It is only necessary now to state generally that the object of the action was to require *448Mrs. M. Elizabeth Leech to demand partition of a tract "of land in which she had an undivided one-third interest, in order to make effective her grant' to the plaintiff company of the right of way for its railroad over her land; .and that, until such…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Ex Parte Union Manufacturing and Power Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1908
- Granger v. Postal Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1905
- Williams v. BrutonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1922
- Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. BowersCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1989
- Jeter v. KnightSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1908
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.