Anderson v. Cave
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Earee, J., Barnwell, November, 1896. Action by Caroline M-. Anderson against Samuel C. Cave, David S. Hair, Carrie C. Farrell, Jennie Brown, T. S. Cave, W. E. Cave, and H. B. Cave. The following is the concluding portion of the Circuit decree, which is not incorporated in the opinion: „ “It further appears that the plaintiff was at the time of said proceeding in the probate court sui juris.
Read the full summary
Before Earee, J., Barnwell, November, 1896. Action by Caroline M-. Anderson against Samuel C. Cave, David S. Hair, Carrie C. Farrell, Jennie Brown, T. S. Cave, W. E. Cave, and H. B. Cave. The following is the concluding portion of the Circuit decree, which is not incorporated in the opinion: „ “It further appears that the plaintiff was at the time of said proceeding in the probate court sui juris. When the plaintiff was served with the summons in the action for partition in the probate court, an opportunity was afforded her to come in and set up the claim she is now seeking to enforce; and if…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Chiee Justice McIver.
This is an appeal from the judgment of his Honor, the late Judge Earle, which is fully set out in the “Case,” and which, together with the exceptions thereto, should be incorporated in the report of this case.
All that we know of the nature of this action and of the' defenses thereto is derived from the following language, found in the Circuit decree: “The object of the present action is to recover from the defendants, Samuel C. Cave, one of the sons of the testator, and others, purchasers from him and other sons of the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Wotten v. CopelandNew York Court of Chancery · 1823
3Cited by2 opinions
- Johnston-Crews Co. v. FolkSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1922
- Beattie v. City CouncilSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1920