Arledge v. Arledge

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Arledge v. Arledge

68 S.E. 549, 86 S.C. 237, 1910 S.C. LEXIS 38

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJuly 5, 1910

Docket7603

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 68 S.E. 549 (Arledge v. Arledge) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arledge v. Arledge, 68 S.E. 549, 86 S.C. 237, 1910 S.C. LEXIS 38 (S.C. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Gary.

This is an action for specific performance of a contract. The facts are fully stated in the decree of his Honor, the Circuit’ Judge, which will be reported.

■The question presented by the exceptions is whether there was error on the part of the Circuit Judge in ruling, that in the deed under which all the parties claim, “issue” is a word of limitation. As a similar question has undergone judicial investigation in the recent case of Williams v. Gause, 83 S. C., 265, we deem it only necessary to cite this case to show that “issue” mentioned in the deed is a word of limitation and not of purchase. The appellant’s attorneys were permitted to review the case of Williams v. Gause, 83 S. C., 265, but the Court adheres to the views therein expressed.

It is the judgment of this Court that the judgment of the Circuit Court be affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Gary.

This is an action for specific performance of a contract. The facts are fully stated in the decree of his Honor, the Circuit’ Judge, which will be reported.

■The question presented by the exceptions is whether there was error on the part of the Circuit Judge in ruling, that in the deed under which all the parties claim, “issue” is a word of limitation. As a similar question has undergone judicial investigation in the recent case of Williams v. Gause, 83 S. C., 265, we deem it only necessary to cite this case to show that “issue” mentioned in the deed is a word of limitation and not of purchase. The appellant’s attorneys were permitted to review the case of Williams v. Gause, 83 S. C., 265, but the Court adheres to the views therein expressed.

It is the judgment of this Court that the judgment of the Circuit Court be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 S.E. 549, 86 S.C. 237, 1910 S.C. LEXIS 38, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arledge-v-arledge-sc-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack