Easton v. Woodbury
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Watts, J., Georgetown, Action by George Easton against Sarah E. Woodbury and William R. Woodbury. From Circuit decree, defendants appeal. cites: Legal tender discharges mortgage: 26 S. C., 337. Mrs. Wood-bury was only surety: 1 Jones on Mtg., sec. 114; 1 Brandt. Sur. and Ag., sec. 34; 16 S. C., 432. Surety is not required to keep tender good: 2 Jones on Mtg., sec. 893. cite: Tender must be continuous: 2 Green. Ev., sec. 600; 17 S. C., 334; 21 Ency.
Read the full summary
Before Watts, J., Georgetown, Action by George Easton against Sarah E. Woodbury and William R. Woodbury. From Circuit decree, defendants appeal. cites: Legal tender discharges mortgage: 26 S. C., 337. Mrs. Wood-bury was only surety: 1 Jones on Mtg., sec. 114; 1 Brandt. Sur. and Ag., sec. 34; 16 S. C., 432. Surety is not required to keep tender good: 2 Jones on Mtg., sec. 893. cite: Tender must be continuous: 2 Green. Ev., sec. 600; 17 S. C., 334; 21 Ency. P. & P., 563. Debt is not extinguished by refusal of tender not including a claim, which may be erroneous: 25 Ency., 901, 928; 38 R. A.,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Chief Justice Pope.
This was an action for the foreclosure of a mortgage of real estate, which came on to be heard by Judge Watts upon the report of the referee and exceptions thereto; but prior to the consideration of such referee’s report there was a demurrer interposed by the plaintiff to the second and third defenses set up in the answer of Sarah E. Woodbury. The Circuit Judge, in his decree, sustained such demurrer. Thereafter he made his decree, and we do not know that we can any better state a fairer history of the contention between the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Beasley v. NewellSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1893
3Cited by2 opinions
- Matheson v. RogersSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1909
- Paldanius v. StraussOregon Supreme Court · 1921