Patterson v. Causey
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Bowman, J., Hampton, October,-1919. Action by Catherine E. Patterson against E. M. Causey et al. From directed verdict for defendants the plaintiff appeals. The third exception was as follows: “Because his Honor, the presiding Judge, erred in holding and deciding that Thos.
Read the full summary
Before Bowman, J., Hampton, October,-1919. Action by Catherine E. Patterson against E. M. Causey et al. From directed verdict for defendants the plaintiff appeals. The third exception was as follows: “Because his Honor, the presiding Judge, erred in holding and deciding that Thos. J. Ayer and John E. Fuller were the owners of the parcels described in their respective deeds, and that the testimony conclusively showed this to be a fact, it being respectfully submitted that they could only have such title as their grantors (Eavinia D. Zeal and E. M. Causey) had, and their grantors, never having…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Watts.
This was an. action for partition. Certain defendants claimed title. Appellants proved title in Thos. A. Causey and to his children. Contesting defendants offered seven deeds from Thomas A. Causey dated in May, 1906, and recorded the same year, after the grantor’s death, to all of which objection was made that there was no proof of delivery. On motion his Honor directed a verdict for the defendants. Appellants appeal and by five exceptions impute error.
1 The first exception imputes error in holding that the plaintiff could not offer…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Donnan Ex Rel. Owens v. MarinerCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2000
- Godfrey v. GodfreySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1936