Kennedy v. Boykin
Supreme Court of South Carolina
This was an action for partition, commenced in April, 1890, by Harriet B. Kennedy and Flora Boykin against Thomas L. Boykin and others, heirs of Burrell Boykin, deceased, certain lien creditors of Thomas L. Boykin being also parties defendant.
Read the full summary
This was an action for partition, commenced in April, 1890, by Harriet B. Kennedy and Flora Boykin against Thomas L. Boykin and others, heirs of Burrell Boykin, deceased, certain lien creditors of Thomas L. Boykin being also parties defendant. In addition to the matters hereinafter stated in the reports of the master and the Circuit decree, so much of the DeSaussure mortgage as bears upon the rate of interest is here given and was as follows: “And the said Thomas L. Boykin on his part agrees and'pi’Omises to pay to the said Louis D. DeSaussure the sum thus to be advanced with interest on the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Mr. Chibe Justice McIver.
The object of this action is to obtain partition of certain real estate in the County of Kershaw, which formerly belonged to Burwell Boykin, and was by his will given to his three sons, Thomas L. Boy.kin. John Boykin, and Eugene Boykin, upon the death of their mother, charged with the payment of certain legacies to their sisters. The mother having died and the two sons, John and Eugene, having died intestate, and the legacies to the daughters having been pi’ovided for, the time for partition of the land has arrived, and the…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Simpson-Fell Oil Co. v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1939
- Ex Parte Union Manufacturing and Power Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1908
- Highland Park Mfg. Co. v. SteeleCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1916
- Bowers v. Baltimore Gas & Electric Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1962
- Ex Parte JohnsonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1928
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.