Hancock v. Caskey
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before MACKEY J., at Lancaster, October Term, 1876. This was au action by Burrell R. Hancock against John D. Caskey, J. M. Caskey and Wylie Q. Caskey to recover damages for a certain quantity of oats alleged to have been the property of the plaintiff, and, on the fir3t day of July, 1874, tp have been wrongfully taken by the defendants and converted to their- own use, The case was as follows : The oats which were alleged to have been converted by the defendants were grown…
Read the full summary
Before MACKEY J., at Lancaster, October Term, 1876. This was au action by Burrell R. Hancock against John D. Caskey, J. M. Caskey and Wylie Q. Caskey to recover damages for a certain quantity of oats alleged to have been the property of the plaintiff, and, on the fir3t day of July, 1874, tp have been wrongfully taken by the defendants and converted to their- own use, The case was as follows : The oats which were alleged to have been converted by the defendants were grown upon a tract of land which, in 1873, “ belonged to and was held in common by Thomas H. Clyburne and the following named…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
WiLLARD, A. J.
This action is for the recovery of personal property, consisting of oats growing on a tract of land purchased by the defendants at the time of such purchase, and subsequently harvested and claimed By the defendants. Plaintiff, to establish his right of recovery, presents the following state of facts: The land on which the oats were grown was sold under an order of sale for partition in January, 1874, and purchased by Thomas H. Clyburn, who sold it to the defendants. No reservation of the growing crops was made in the sale for partition.…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Marion County Lumber Co. v. Tilghman Lumber Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1910
- Forbes v. BowmanSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1911