Lyles v. Haskell
Supreme Court of South Carolina
This was a rule against James F. Redding, requiring him to show cause why he had not complied with his bid at a sale made in the case of Lyles v. Haskell. The rule was resisted upon the grounds set forth in the Circuit decree.
Read the full summary
This was a rule against James F. Redding, requiring him to show cause why he had not complied with his bid at a sale made in the case of Lyles v. Haskell. The rule was resisted upon the grounds set forth in the Circuit decree. At the hearing, the relator read an affidavit from H. Y. Milling, dated June 10, 1891, in which he stated that he was deputy sheriff of Fairfield County in August, 1882, and as such had served the summons in Kincaid v. Anderson on Thomas Anderson and Emma E. Anderson at their residence, and that such residence was-in Fair-field County. The Circuit decree was as follows:…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Mr. Justice McGowan.
On February 6,1888, W. II. Kerr, as the clerk of the court of Fairfield County, conveyed to William H. Lyles, his heirs and assigns forever, “all that piece, parcel, or tract of land, lying and being in the county and State *398aforesaid, containing twelve hundred and sixty-six and one half (1,266-J) acres, more or less, and bounded by lands of J. Davis, K. Anderson, Thomas Furman, J. A. Beard, Mrs. Watt, J. P. McFie, Thomas Robertson, Glazier Rabb, and others.” The deed recited that the land had been sold by order of the Court of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- In Re LoneySupreme Court of the United States · 1890
3Cited by11 opinions
- Heyward v. LongSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1935
- State Ex Rel. Wolfe v. SandersSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1920
- Corbett v. FogleSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1905
- Barfield v. BarnesSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1917
- Dacus v. Johnston, GovernorSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1936
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.