Dinckle v. Timrod

1 S.C. Eq. 109
CourtCourt of Chancery of South Carolina
DecidedDecember 15, 1784
StatusPublished

This text of 1 S.C. Eq. 109 (Dinckle v. Timrod) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Chancery of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Dinckle v. Timrod, 1 S.C. Eq. 109 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1784).

Opinion

Bill and answers read with exhibits, whereupon ordered that the country lands be divided by commissioners, or any of them, into five equal parts or shares, for the benefit of the children ef Michael Muckenfuss, and the representatives of Ms son Andrew: and that the lands in Charleston he sold by the master after six weeks public notice on a credit of two years, (subject to the claim, of Catharine Friend) o» inte, rcct, ana security to be approved by the master, for the benefit of the complainant, asid the other children ‘of the eaid Michael Muckenfuss.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 S.C. Eq. 109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dinckle-v-timrod-ctchansc-1784.