Cannon v. Lomax
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Norton, J., Abbeville, The opinion fully states the case. ■ The defendants not being strangers, but tenants in common with the other distributees, partition should be ordered. Gen. Stat., § 1829; 2 Stroh. Eq., 147; 3 Pom. Eq. Jur., § 1387; 17 Ves., 533; 2 Strob. Eq., 321; 20 S. 0., 424; 1 Rich. Eq., 361; 4 Kent, 367-369. The term was merged in the inheritance. 4 Kent, 99; 10 Rich. Eq., 428; 4 Kay ‡ J., 595; Smith Real Prop., 942.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Mr. Justice McGowan.
Samuel R. Lomax died intestate in the year 1886 (the precise day is not stated), seized and possessed of -a respectable estate, and among other things a plantation containing 600’ acres of land. His heirs at law were five children, viz., G\ W. Lomax, J. J. Lomax, Augustus B. Lomax, Julia E. Lomax, and Josephine E. Cannon. Soon after the death of the intestate, Josephine E. Cannon and the other distributees commenced an action to partition the land against J. W. Lomax and J. J. Lomax, 1 who answered, denying that the parties could…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Wilkin v. WilkinNew York Court of Chancery · 1814
3Cited by8 opinions
- Madruga v. Superior Court of Cal., County of San DiegoSupreme Court of the United States · 1954
- Henderson v. HendersonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1907
- Carolina Mineral Co. v. YoungSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1941
- South Carolina Savings Bank v. StansellSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1931
- Coyle v. DueNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1914
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.