Henry v. Henry
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Kershaw, J., Richland, April, 1888. This appeal was from the following decree: On the 27th day of February, 1867, a judgment was duly entered in the above entitled case and execution sued out thereon and lodged with the sheriff of Richland County.
Read the full summary
Before Kershaw, J., Richland, April, 1888. This appeal was from the following decree: On the 27th day of February, 1867, a judgment was duly entered in the above entitled case and execution sued out thereon and lodged with the sheriff of Richland County. On the 7th day of October, 1887, a summons was taken out and served on defendant, by his written acknowledgment entered thereon, requiring him to show cause why the original judgment should not be revived and execution had thereon. The defendant in writing consented to the renewal desired, and made affidavit that the judgment was bona fide…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Mr. Justice McIver.
The sole inquiry raised by this appeal is as to the proper construction of the act of 1879 (17 Stat., 167), entitled “An act to declare the law in relation to liens on real estate,” incorporated in the General Statutes as section 1831. That section reads as follows : “No mortgage or deed having the effect of a mortgage, no judgment, decree, or other lien on real estate, shall constitute a lion upon any real estate after the lapse of twenty years from the date of the creation of the same : Provided, that if the holder of any such lien…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Robinson v. WatsonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1941
- Aiken Mortgage & Realty Co. v. AltmanSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1937
- Boyd v. BoydSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1937
- Hart v. Campbell ex rel. Estate of MimmsCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1989
- Lyles v. LylesSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1905
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.