Chafee & Co. v. Rainey
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Aldrich, J., Georgetown, March, 1883. The opinion fully states the case. The original decree of the Circuit judge was as follows, omitting its statement of facts: Mr. Dozier, with great force and ingenuity, contended that the defendant Rainey is not entitled to the exemption, because his second wife having died in June, 1880, and his children not living with him, he was not the head of a family; that the lien of the judgment attached, and his subsequent marriage in…
Read the full summary
Before Aldrich, J., Georgetown, March, 1883. The opinion fully states the case. The original decree of the Circuit judge was as follows, omitting its statement of facts: Mr. Dozier, with great force and ingenuity, contended that the defendant Rainey is not entitled to the exemption, because his second wife having died in June, 1880, and his children not living with him, he was not the head of a family; that the lien of the judgment attached, and his subsequent marriage in June, 1881, did not divest that lien, and, therefore, the lot No. 55, in which he had lived with his previous wives and…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Mr. Justice McIver.
These two cases, involving the same question, were heard and will be considered together. The questions are: 1. Whether the respondent is entitled to claim a homestead as against the judgments of the appellants; 2. Whether the circuit judge had the power to correct a mistake in his decree after it was filed.
The facts out of which these questions arise are as follows: The judgment in favor of Chafee & Co. was recovered on February 11th, 1874, and that in favor of Johnson on June 24th, 1875. There is also “a judgment in favor of…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Ex Parte GoldsmithSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1904
- Cox v. Fleetwood Homes of Georgia, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1999