Bonner v. Cunningham

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Bonner v. Cunningham

12 S.C. Eq. 162

DecidedMarch 21, 1837

StatusPublished

This text of 12 S.C. Eq. 162 (Bonner v. Cunningham) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bonner v. Cunningham, 12 S.C. Eq. 162 (S.C. Ct. App. 1837).

Pincite

Opinion

From this decree, plaintiffs appeal, as to so much as dismisses the bill, as against Richard Cunningham, — Because it is respectfully submitted, that his honor erred in dismissing the bill as to Ri« chard Cunningham, as it appears by the decree against the Cleapors, that he was satisfied with the proof of complainants’ title, and the facts did not support the plea of the statute of limitations.

It is ordered and decreed, that the decree of the circuit chancellor be affirmed, and the motion dismissed.

DAYID JOHNSON,

J. JOHNSTON,

WILLIAM HARPER.

21st March, 1827.

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

From this decree, plaintiffs appeal, as to so much as dismisses the bill, as against Richard Cunningham, — Because it is respectfully submitted, that his honor erred in dismissing the bill as to Ri« chard Cunningham, as it appears by the decree against the Cleapors, that he was satisfied with the proof of complainants’ title, and the facts did not support the plea of the statute of limitations.

It is ordered and decreed, that the decree of the circuit chancellor be affirmed, and the motion dismissed.

DAYID JOHNSON,

J. JOHNSTON,

WILLIAM HARPER.

21st March, 1827.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 S.C. Eq. 162, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bonner-v-cunningham-scctapp-1837.