Witcover v. Grant
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Pri-nce, J., Marion, Fall term, 1911. Action by C. H. Witcover, continued in the name of H. Witcover, against Henry Grant. Plaintiff appeals. cites: As to construction of secs. 102, I0h and l05 °f Code of Proc.: 48 S. C. 47; 71 S. C. 331. Estoppel in pais should be pleaded: Pom. Code Rem., sec. 712; 27 Am.
Read the full summary
Before Pri-nce, J., Marion, Fall term, 1911. Action by C. H. Witcover, continued in the name of H. Witcover, against Henry Grant. Plaintiff appeals. cites: As to construction of secs. 102, I0h and l05 °f Code of Proc.: 48 S. C. 47; 71 S. C. 331. Estoppel in pais should be pleaded: Pom. Code Rem., sec. 712; 27 Am. St. R. 344. cites : Estoppel in pais need not be pleaded (81 S. C. 235) and is a proper defense here: 57 S. C. 279; 81 S. C. 235. Defendant can hold to line marked out: Harp. 232; 1 Cyc. 1124.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice PIydricic.
Plaintiff brought this action to recover from defendant thirteen and four-tenths acres of land, which defendant holds under the following state of facts: By her deed, dated December 12, 1891, Mrs. Cecelia H. Witcover, who was plaintiff’s wife, and under whose devise of all her property he claims the land in dispute, conveyed to defendant twenty-five acres of a tract, owned by her, containing 238 acres. The part sold to defendant is described in her deed to him as follows: “All that certain tract of land situated in the county and…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Lites v. AddisonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1887
- Scarborough v. WoodleySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1908
3Cited by2 opinions
- Lee v. Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1955
- Walker v. OswaldSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1930