Dubose v. Kell

71 S.E. 371, 90 S.C. 196, 1911 S.C. LEXIS 172
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedDecember 19, 1911
Docket8064
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 71 S.E. 371 (Dubose v. Kell) 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
Dubose v. Kell, 71 S.E. 371, 90 S.C. 196, 1911 S.C. LEXIS 172 (S.C. 1911).

Opinion

The opinion im this oase was filed on May 23, 1911, but remittitur hcldi up om petition far rehearing- until

The opinion of the Court was- delivered by

*229 Mr. Justice Gary.

This is an action to set aside a deed for fraud, anidi fur other relief.

The facts, are fully stated, in the decree of his Honor, special Judge Ernest Moore, which, together with appellant’s exceptions', will be incorporated in the report of the case. .

5 The first question that will be considered, is whether there was error on the part of the presiding Judge, in refusing the motion to allow the plaintiff, to amend the complaint in tine particular mentioned in 'the first exception. Amendments -are within, the discretion, of the presiding Judge, and .an order refusing a motion to amend, is not appealable, unless, there was an abuse' of discretion, which does not appear in this case.

We do not deem it necessary, to consider the other exceptions, specifically, as we are satisfied with the Circuit Judge’s findings of fact, and the reasons assigned by him for his conclusions of law.

Affirmed.

6 Petition for rehearing refused by formal order filed December 19, 1911.

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

Related

Macaulay v. Wachovia Bank of South Carolina, N.A.
569 S.E.2d 371 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2002)
MacAulay v. WACHOVIA BANK OF SC, NA
569 S.E.2d 371 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2002)
Hudson v. Leopold
341 S.E.2d 137 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1986)
Humble Oil & Refining Company v. DeLoache
297 F. Supp. 647 (D. South Carolina, 1969)
Blanford ex rel. Estate of Mauterer v. Mauterer
165 S.E.2d 633 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1969)
Avant v. JOHNSON
97 S.E.2d 396 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1957)
Schenck v. Going
237 F.2d 251 (Fourth Circuit, 1956)
Owens v. Sweat
86 S.E.2d 886 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1955)
Donnelly v. Mann
68 So. 2d 584 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1953)
Smith v. Whetstone
39 S.E.2d 127 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1946)
Mathias v. Mathias
33 S.E.2d 626 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1945)
Page v. Lewis
26 S.E.2d 569 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1943)
In Re: Estate of Donne'ly v. Ashby
188 So. 108 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1938)
In Re: Nightingale's Estate
189 S.E. 890 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1937)
Whitmire v. Kroelinger
42 F.2d 699 (W.D. South Carolina, 1930)
Peacock v. Dubois
105 So. 321 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1925)
Stump v. Sturm
254 F. 535 (Fourth Circuit, 1918)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
71 S.E. 371, 90 S.C. 196, 1911 S.C. LEXIS 172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dubose-v-kell-sc-1911.