Legal Opinion

Hiott v. Cochran

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided July 27, 1948No. 16112PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Oxner, J.:

This suit was brought by M. H. Hiott against Pearly Cochran, Rosa Haynes, Lucille Smalls and Jim Cochran for the partition of a tract of land in Colleton County containing 28 acres, more or less. Plaintiff alleged that he owned a 128/180 undivided interest therein and each of the defendants a 13/180 interest. He asserted that his undivided interest formerly belonged to one Ellison Nesbitt, was sold under tax executions against Nesbitt and conveyed to him by three separate deeds hereinafter mentioned. The defendants denied in their answer that the plaintiff ever acquired any interest…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Shackelford v. McGlashanNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1921
  2. Wallace v. BrownSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1860
  3. Vallentine v. RobinsonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1938
  4. Carter v. WrotenSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1938
  5. Nickum v. GastonOregon Supreme Court · 1895

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Donohue Ex Rel. De Vlaming v. WardCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1989
  2. Dunham v. St. Clair DavisSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1956

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API