Cathcart v. Hopkins

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Cathcart v. Hopkins

112 S.E. 64, 119 S.C. 190, 1922 S.C. LEXIS 63

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedApril 11, 1922

Docket10853

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 112 S.E. 64 (Cathcart v. Hopkins) 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

Cathcart v. Hopkins, 112 S.E. 64, 119 S.C. 190, 1922 S.C. LEXIS 63 (S.C. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Coti-iran.

The particulars of this litigation are set out in the circuit decree, which will be reported.

Except for the suggestion that the case of Cathcart v. Sugenheimer, 18 S. C. 123, is res judicata of the validity of the sale proceedings, the conclusions of the Circuit Judge are satisfactory to this Court. Argumentatively we think that the case referred to is conclusive.

It appears that in 1876 John H. Cathcart was judicially declared sane. His cause of action to set aside the various sales then arose, and the statute was not suspended by his subsequent lunacy. Cathcart v. Matthews, 105 S. C. 329, at page 346, 89 S. E. 1021. The various grantees having held for nearly 40 years, even if no time runs against a motion to set aside a void judgment, it would be idle to remand the case, even if the judgment were void.

The judgment of this Court is that the decree appealed from be affirmed.

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