Tindal v. Neal
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Benet, J., Sumter, June, 1899'. Action for partition by Susan S. Tindal, individually, and as administratrix of Mary E. Tindal, against John E. Neal, Charles M. Neal, S. Eula McKnight, Chas. L. Cuttino, Thos. P. Cuttino, David W. Cuttino, and S. James Cuttino.
Read the full summary
Before Benet, J., Sumter, June, 1899'. Action for partition by Susan S. Tindal, individually, and as administratrix of Mary E. Tindal, against John E. Neal, Charles M. Neal, S. Eula McKnight, Chas. L. Cuttino, Thos. P. Cuttino, David W. Cuttino, and S. James Cuttino. The decree is as follows : “The above styled cause was brought to partition a tract of 350 acres of land, more or less, situate in said county and State, and bounded * * * It was alleged in the complaint that this tract of land descended to the parties to this cause as the heirs -at law of Mary E. Tindal, who died intestate…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Chiee Justice McIver.
There are but two ques tions presented by this appeal: 1st. Whether the Circuit Judge erred in holding that the children of Mary E. Eynam, afterwards Tindal, who were alive at the death of the testator, Samuel Perdriau, and at the death of his wife, took vested remainders in the property which is the subject of controversy in this case, subject to open and let in other children of Mary E. Lynam (now Tindal), who should come into existence. 2d. Whether the Circuit Judge erred in holding that “the plaintiff, being in possession…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Duncan v. De YampertSupreme Court of Alabama · 1913
- Mobley v. MobleySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1910
- Pearson v. EasterlingSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1917