Cutfield v. Flood

6 Rec. Co. Ch. (S.C.) 330

Court of Chancery of South Carolina·Decided November 17, 1726·Published

Opinion

Mr. Whitaker of the Complainants Councel moved that the Defendant might be foreclosed of her Equity of Redemption in the Estate in the Bill Mentioned, and that the Masters Report be read.

Report read Whereby it appearing that the Estate in question is not Sufficient to Answer the Plantiffs demands; and Mr. Hargrave Council for the Defendant concerning thereto.

It is Ordered that the Defendant be foreclosed of all Equity to the Estate in Question.

Intr.

J. Skene Register

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

Mr. Whitaker of the Complainants Councel moved that the Defendant might be foreclosed of her Equity of Redemption in the Estate in the Bill Mentioned, and that the Masters Report be read.

Report read Whereby it appearing that the Estate in question is not Sufficient to Answer the Plantiffs demands; and Mr. Hargrave Council for the Defendant concerning thereto.

It is Ordered that the Defendant be foreclosed of all Equity to the Estate in Question.

Intr.

J. Skene Register

Cutfield v. Flood, 6 Rec. Co. Ch. (S.C.) 330 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1726).

Pincite

6 Rec. Co. Ch. (S.C.) 330 (Cutfield v. Flood) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.