Legal Opinion

Ex Parte Goldsmith

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided April 20, 1904PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

April 20, 1904. The opinion of the Court was delivered by The action has already ripened into a judgment in favor of Furman University. All the lands covered by the mortgage have been sold, and by agreement of counsel the proceeds of such sale are retained by the Court as if said lands had not been converted into cash. There remaining $1,500 or $1,600 in cash, which will be sufficient to pay the dower adjudged in this action to be paid Mrs. Mary C. Huff, as doweress, and still leave a balance, the question of homestead of $1,000, claimed by Mrs. Mary C. Huff, awaits adjudication. This…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Trimmier v. WinsmithSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1894
  2. Chafee & Co. v. RaineySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1884
  3. Chalmers v. TurnipseedSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1884
  4. Cochran v. DarcySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1874
  5. Dunsford v. BrownSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1885

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Weatherly v. MedlinSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1927
  2. In Re EvansUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. South Carolina · 2006

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API