Boozer v. Teague
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Kershaw, J., Newberry, February. 1886. The Circuit decree in this case was as follows: This action was submitted to be heard and determined by the judge without a jury, at the February term of the court, upon the testimony and arguments of counsel.
Read the full summary
Before Kershaw, J., Newberry, February. 1886. The Circuit decree in this case was as follows: This action was submitted to be heard and determined by the judge without a jury, at the February term of the court, upon the testimony and arguments of counsel. The facts, as I find them, are as follows: On the 9th day of November, 1871, Elizabeth.0. Teague, at the request of John D. Boozer, her son by a former marriage, agreed to purchase a tract of land for him from one E. T. Whitman, for the sum of f960, to pay one-third of the purchase money in cash, and give her notes, secured by a mortgage of…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Mr. Justice McIver.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover a certain tract of land,- known as the Whitman place, for the benefit of herself and her infant son, John D.Boozer, jr., who, because of his minority, has been made a defendant. Her claim is based upon the allegation that her deceased husband, John D. Boozer, sr., died seized and possessed of the land, and she, as his widow, and their infant son, John D., being his only heirs at law are entitled to recover possession of the said land from the other defendants, who, it is alleged,…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Adams v. AdamsSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1951
- Harris v. Thelma McIntosh BerrySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1957
- Colleton Realty Co. v. FolkSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1910
- Culver v. GrahamWyoming Supreme Court · 1889
- Craven v. WilliamsDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 1969
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.