Grant v. Poyas
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Aldrich, J., Charleston, May, 1901. Action by Mamie F. Grant against Joseph M. Poyas and Susan E- Mendenhall et al. The appeal is from the following order sustaining demurrer to the two causes of action set out in the complaint: “This action comes before this Court upon a demurrer to the complaint, interposed by the guardian ad litem of the infant defendants. The complaint must be read as a part of this decree.
Read the full summary
Before Aldrich, J., Charleston, May, 1901. Action by Mamie F. Grant against Joseph M. Poyas and Susan E- Mendenhall et al. The appeal is from the following order sustaining demurrer to the two causes of action set out in the complaint: “This action comes before this Court upon a demurrer to the complaint, interposed by the guardian ad litem of the infant defendants. The complaint must be read as a part of this decree. The most material,averments thereof are: That Carry Whyte died intestate in Sept., 1887, leaving sur? viving her as sole next of kin, heir at law and distributee, her daughter,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Gary.
The question raised by this appeal is whether a sole distributee of an intestate estate can maintain an action against a person other than the administrator to recover the assets of the estate where there are no debts against the estate. We say this is the question, because the complaint alleges in express terms that the plaintiff is the sole distributee of the intestate’s estate, and in the ninth paragraph further alleges that “no person other than the plaintiff and the said defendants are interested in said premises as owners or…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Lanter v. So. States Life Ins. Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1920
- Bomar v. United StatesDistrict Court, W.D. South Carolina · 1935
- Lerner v. BluesteinSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1935
- De Hay v. SmithSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1921
- Henegan v. DrakeSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1928