Dixon v. Williams

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Dixon v. Williams

7 S.E.2d 219, 192 S.C. 472, 1940 S.C. LEXIS 21

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedFebruary 23, 1940

Docket15023

StatusPublished

This text of 7 S.E.2d 219 (Dixon v. Williams) 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

Dixon v. Williams, 7 S.E.2d 219, 192 S.C. 472, 1940 S.C. LEXIS 21 (S.C. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Baker.

In the description of the tracts of land involved herein, except in a most general way, the points of the compass were ignored, and the boundaries carelessly and inadequately given.

*476 It is true that if the plat is strictly followed, the only way that lands of General Land and Investment Company could be one of the northern boundaries of respondent’s land would be for the dividing line to run as claimed by appellant, but from the careless manner in which the other boundaries of both tracts of land are given in the contracts of purchase, it is plausible that the Holman Bridge Road was overlooked and the lands of General Land and Investment Company across this road given as a northern boundary.

From a careful consideration of the record before us, we cannot say that the trial Judge was in error in his conclusions, and his decree, which will be reported, is therefore affirmed.

Mr. Chief Justice Bonham, Messrs. Justices Carter and Fishburne and Mr. Acting Associate Justice L. D. Lide concur.

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 Baker.

In the description of the tracts of land involved herein, except in a most general way, the points of the compass were ignored, and the boundaries carelessly and inadequately given.

*476 It is true that if the plat is strictly followed, the only way that lands of General Land and Investment Company could be one of the northern boundaries of respondent’s land would be for the dividing line to run as claimed by appellant, but from the careless manner in which the other boundaries of both tracts of land are given in the contracts of purchase, it is plausible that the Holman Bridge Road was overlooked and the lands of General Land and Investment Company across this road given as a northern boundary.

From a careful consideration of the record before us, we cannot say that the trial Judge was in error in his conclusions, and his decree, which will be reported, is therefore affirmed.

Mr. Chief Justice Bonham, Messrs. Justices Carter and Fishburne and Mr. Acting Associate Justice L. D. Lide concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 S.E.2d 219, 192 S.C. 472, 1940 S.C. LEXIS 21, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dixon-v-williams-sc-1940.