Butler v. Butler

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Butler v. Butler

53 S.E. 646, 73 S.C. 402, 1906 S.C. LEXIS 201

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedMarch 3, 1906

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 53 S.E. 646 (Butler v. Butler) 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

Butler v. Butler, 53 S.E. 646, 73 S.C. 402, 1906 S.C. LEXIS 201 (S.C. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Woods.

The brothers and sisters and the nephews and nieces of Silas- Butler brought this action for partition against his widow. Partition in kind having been found impracticable, the land was sold by order of the Court. *403 The master reported that attorneys for plaintiff should be allowed a fee of $2-50 for their services in the partition suit, to be paid out of the proceeds of sale of land before distribution. Upon exception to this recommendation of the master, the Circuit Judge held there was no warrant for the allowance of a fee to the attorneys for the plaintiffs out of the common fund. The precise point was decided in Westmoreland v. Martin, 24 S. C., 238.

The judgment of this Court is, 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 Woods.

The brothers and sisters and the nephews and nieces of Silas- Butler brought this action for partition against his widow. Partition in kind having been found impracticable, the land was sold by order of the Court. *403 The master reported that attorneys for plaintiff should be allowed a fee of $2-50 for their services in the partition suit, to be paid out of the proceeds of sale of land before distribution. Upon exception to this recommendation of the master, the Circuit Judge held there was no warrant for the allowance of a fee to the attorneys for the plaintiffs out of the common fund. The precise point was decided in Westmoreland v. Martin, 24 S. C., 238.

The judgment of this Court is, that the judgment of the Circuit Court be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 S.E. 646, 73 S.C. 402, 1906 S.C. LEXIS 201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/butler-v-butler-sc-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack