Rippy v. Smith
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Action by C. D. Rippy et al. against A. J. Smith. From judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. cites: Consideration of new contract is extinguishment of old: 16 Ency., 865. 871; 11 Rich., 137; 61 S. C., 448; 2 Camp., 124, 383; 2 Stork, 417; 3 Camp., 175; 15 M. & W.,.23; 1 Smith Lead Ca„ 639, 668; 25 Ency., 900; 10 So.
Read the full summary
Action by C. D. Rippy et al. against A. J. Smith. From judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. cites: Consideration of new contract is extinguishment of old: 16 Ency., 865. 871; 11 Rich., 137; 61 S. C., 448; 2 Camp., 124, 383; 2 Stork, 417; 3 Camp., 175; 15 M. & W.,.23; 1 Smith Lead Ca„ 639, 668; 25 Ency., 900; 10 So. R., 293; 101 Mo., 534; 48 S. C., 458; 61 S. C., 448; 21 S. C., 239. cite: Findings by Circuit Court are final: 63 S. C., 45; 58 S. C., 1; 51 S. C., 560. There must be a new and independent con»sideration to support the new contract here set up: 35 S. C., 180; 61 S. C., 456;…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Chief Justice Pope.
On February the 14th, 1904, James Rippy, of Cleveland County, N. C., died possessed of certain real estate in Cherokee County, of this State. His will being attested by only two witnesses was not recognized as valid here, hence his heirs brought an action for partition of the said property. The appellant herein, J. A. Smith, under a fee simple deed to the premises made by James Rippy, deceased, dated August 27th, 1901, claimed a certain mineral interest in the lands described in the complaint. He was, therefore, made a party…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- State v. . GreenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1900
- Lipscomb v. LittlejohnSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1902
3Cited by4 opinions
- Riley v. BerrySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1938
- Williams v. LawrenceSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1940
- Wallace v. Orangeburg Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1910
- Carolina Savings Bank v. EllisSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1934