Darant v. Cabbage

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Darant v. Cabbage

20 S.C.L. 311

DecidedMarch 15, 1834

StatusPublished

This text of 20 S.C.L. 311 (Darant v. Cabbage) 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

Darant v. Cabbage, 20 S.C.L. 311 (S.C. Ct. App. 1834).

Pincite

Opinion

Harper, J.

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Treville, for the motion. Dawson, contra.

If the case were, that the plaintiff had purchased the defendant's interest in the land, and defendant’s children were in possession along with him, I should think the motion ought to have been granted. By his purchase, plaintiff became tenant in common with the children, and one tenant has no right, by action, to dispossess the rest. If his action were defeated, it would be by his own fault, who had misconceived it. So if defendant were in possession, as natural guardian of his children. . The presiding judge, however, reports that “ the defendant was in possession, by virtue of his own interest, whatever that may be, and not as trustee for the infants.” By this we are bound. One tenant in common may maintain an action against a stranger, and recover the entire possession; and defendant, after his interest was divested by the sheriff’s sale, was a stranger to the title. The motion is therefore refused.

O’Neall, J. concurred. Johnjson, J. absent.

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

Harper, J.

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Treville, for the motion. Dawson, contra.

If the case were, that the plaintiff had purchased the defendant's interest in the land, and defendant’s children were in possession along with him, I should think the motion ought to have been granted. By his purchase, plaintiff became tenant in common with the children, and one tenant has no right, by action, to dispossess the rest. If his action were defeated, it would be by his own fault, who had misconceived it. So if defendant were in possession, as natural guardian of his children. . The presiding judge, however, reports that “ the defendant was in possession, by virtue of his own interest, whatever that may be, and not as trustee for the infants.” By this we are bound. One tenant in common may maintain an action against a stranger, and recover the entire possession; and defendant, after his interest was divested by the sheriff’s sale, was a stranger to the title. The motion is therefore refused.

O’Neall, J. concurred. Johnjson, J. absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 S.C.L. 311, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/darant-v-cabbage-scctapp-1834.