Carlisle v. Farrow
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Watts, J., Spartanburg, March, 1905. Action by H. B. Carlisle, administrator of Thos. Cheek, against Abner T. Farrow, administrator of Martha P. Cheek. The following is the report of J. J. Burnett, the master: “This action was begun September 10; 1895. An order of reference was obtained August 19, 1895, referring it to R. R. Hill, the then master, to take testimony and hear and decide all the issues. It was about nine years thereafter before any reference was held.
Read the full summary
Before Watts, J., Spartanburg, March, 1905. Action by H. B. Carlisle, administrator of Thos. Cheek, against Abner T. Farrow, administrator of Martha P. Cheek. The following is the report of J. J. Burnett, the master: “This action was begun September 10; 1895. An order of reference was obtained August 19, 1895, referring it to R. R. Hill, the then master, to take testimony and hear and decide all the issues. It was about nine years thereafter before any reference was held. I do not know why the matter was allowed to' stand so long. “A brief history may not be inappropriate. Willis D. Cheek…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Gary.
The facts of this case are fully set out in the report'of the master, which was confirmed by a formal order of the Circuit Court. The master’s report and the defendant’s exceptions will be incorporated in the report of the case.
1 The first, second and third exceptions either assign error in the findings of fact by the Circuit Court, or present quesrtions of law that are dependent upon findings of fact, and cannot be sustained, unless the findings of fact Upon which they rest are decided in favor of the appellant. As this Court is…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Martin v. RagsdaleSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1905
- Phillips v. YonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1901
- McCorkle v. WilliamsSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1895
3Cited by1 opinion
- Mitchell v. ClevelandSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1907