Coogler v. Crosby
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before-, J., Fairfield, -. Action by Annie Coogler et al. against Sallie Crosby et al. Plaintiffs appeal. cite: Record does not show service on minors and judgment is not binding on them: Code of Proc. 155. sub. 3; 1.7 S. C. 439; 33 S. C. 187; 7 Ency. 786-7; 76 Am. Dec. 663; 39 Fed. Cas. 17; 95 Mo. 507; 13 S. C. 301. As to presumption of regularity: 18 Wall. 350; 59 S. C. 504; 34 Cal. 391; 10 Ency. Ev. 769; 4 Fed. Cas. 114a.
Read the full summary
Before-, J., Fairfield, -. Action by Annie Coogler et al. against Sallie Crosby et al. Plaintiffs appeal. cite: Record does not show service on minors and judgment is not binding on them: Code of Proc. 155. sub. 3; 1.7 S. C. 439; 33 S. C. 187; 7 Ency. 786-7; 76 Am. Dec. 663; 39 Fed. Cas. 17; 95 Mo. 507; 13 S. C. 301. As to presumption of regularity: 18 Wall. 350; 59 S. C. 504; 34 Cal. 391; 10 Ency. Ev. 769; 4 Fed. Cas. 114a. As to construction of will: 1 Dess. 331, 499; Bail. Eq. 9; McM. Eq. 345; 11 S. C. 357; 16 S. C. 330; 30 Ency. 737, 743; 37 N. C. 100; 83 Fed. R. 109. Attacking judgment…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Woods.
The main question involved in this action for partition is whether the Circuit Court ruled correctly in holding that the plaintiffs were bound by a former judgment and sale of the land in pursuance thereof, under which the defendants, who are respondents in the appeal, claim.
1 The alleged fatal objection to the validity of the former judgment and to its admission in evidence was that there was not found in the record the requisite proof of service on some of the plaintiffs who were then infants. The record did not contain the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Clark v. NevesSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1907
- Rice v. BambergSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1901
- Allen v. AllenSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1897
- Ex Parte PearsonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1908
- Bailey v. BaileySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1894
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- SINGLETON v. Mullins Lumber Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1959
- Scott v. NewellSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1928
- Fouche v. Royal Indemnity Co. of New YorkSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1950
- Cannon v. Haverty Furniture Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1935
- Abraham v. New York Underwriters InsuranceSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1938
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.