Parker v. Horton
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before MclvER, J., Chesterfield, July, 1919.- Action by Nancy A. Parker et al. against C. C. Plorton et al. From judgment for defendant, the plaintiffs appeal. Following are the decree and the exceptions, referred to in opinion: Decree. This is an action for partition.
Read the full summary
Before MclvER, J., Chesterfield, July, 1919.- Action by Nancy A. Parker et al. against C. C. Plorton et al. From judgment for defendant, the plaintiffs appeal. Following are the decree and the exceptions, referred to in opinion: Decree. This is an action for partition. The defendant, J. R. Horton, however, in his answer claims fee simple title to the land in question, as sole owner thereof, by virtue of a purchase by him of the said land at a tax sale and a sheriff’s deed resulting therefrom. Manifestly, if the contention of the defendant, J. R. Horton, be correct, the alleged interests of…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court, was delivered by
Mr. Ci-iiEE Justice Gary.
The facts are stated in the decree of his Honor, which, ■together with the exceptions, will be reported.
The respondent’s attorneys in their written argument concede that there is but one issue in the case, and that is whether the fact that the lands were returned as the prop erty of Nancy Hough’s estate, and not as the estate of Isaac Hough rendered the title of the purchaser void.
The case of Taylor v. Strauss, 95 S. C. 295, 78 S. E. 883, is conclusive of this question, and shows that his Honor, the Circuit Judge, was in error.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Taylor v. StraussSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1913
3Cited by5 opinions
- Hines v. GravinsSupreme Court of Virginia · 1922
- Vallentine v. RobinsonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1938
- Carter v. WrotenSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1938
- Cook v. KnightSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1934
- Taylor v. JenningsSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1958