Godfrey v. Schmidt

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Godfrey v. Schmidt

1 S.C. Eq. 57

DecidedFebruary 15, 1840

StatusPublished

This text of 1 S.C. Eq. 57 (Godfrey v. Schmidt) 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

Godfrey v. Schmidt, 1 S.C. Eq. 57 (S.C. Ct. App. 1840).

Pincite

Opinion

Curia, per

Johnson, Ch.

From a document produced at the hearing of the appeal, it is plain that Freeman Wing was alive three or four months subsequent to the period assumed in the circuit decree. But from the view taken by this court, the difference is not material. The general principle stated in the decree is recognized by this court, to wit, that “after the lapse of twenty years, every thing is presumed which is necessary to quiet the title of property — the death of the last owner, administration on his estate, and a title from the administrator.” Mrs. Wing was in the quiet and undisturbed possession and enjoyment of the estate, from February, 1811, till her death in April, 1832. The piesent claimant has, during that time, been under no legal disability. The general rule must then be applied. Appeal dismissed.

Harper, Johnston and Dunkin, Ch., concurred.

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

Curia, per

Johnson, Ch.

From a document produced at the hearing of the appeal, it is plain that Freeman Wing was alive three or four months subsequent to the period assumed in the circuit decree. But from the view taken by this court, the difference is not material. The general principle stated in the decree is recognized by this court, to wit, that “after the lapse of twenty years, every thing is presumed which is necessary to quiet the title of property — the death of the last owner, administration on his estate, and a title from the administrator.” Mrs. Wing was in the quiet and undisturbed possession and enjoyment of the estate, from February, 1811, till her death in April, 1832. The piesent claimant has, during that time, been under no legal disability. The general rule must then be applied. Appeal dismissed.

Harper, Johnston and Dunkin, Ch., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 S.C. Eq. 57, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/godfrey-v-schmidt-scctapp-1840.