Gordon v. Stevens

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Gordon v. Stevens

11 S.C. Eq. 429

DecidedJuly 15, 1836

StatusPublished

This text of 11 S.C. Eq. 429 (Gordon v. Stevens) 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

Gordon v. Stevens, 11 S.C. Eq. 429 (S.C. Ct. App. 1836).

Pincite

Opinion

Chancellor Johnston.

I am satisfied I was wrong in sustaining the plaintiff’s first exception to the Commissioner’s report.

'The Court, in May v. May, (1 Bailey, 2TT,) say, that a widow is entitled, either to interest or mesne profits up to the time her dower is allowed her: so that, in this case, injustice was done in disallowing both.

The authorities quoted by the appellant’s counsel, have fully satisfied the Court, that mesne profits have always been allowed in equity.

The motion to reverse so much of the circuit decree as sustains the plaintiff’s first exception to the Commissioner’s report, is reversed. Of course the report stands confirmed.

Chancellors De Sausstjre, Johnson and Harper, and Justices Gantt, Richardson, O’Neael, Evans and Butler, concurred.

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

Chancellor Johnston.

I am satisfied I was wrong in sustaining the plaintiff’s first exception to the Commissioner’s report.

'The Court, in May v. May, (1 Bailey, 2TT,) say, that a widow is entitled, either to interest or mesne profits up to the time her dower is allowed her: so that, in this case, injustice was done in disallowing both.

The authorities quoted by the appellant’s counsel, have fully satisfied the Court, that mesne profits have always been allowed in equity.

The motion to reverse so much of the circuit decree as sustains the plaintiff’s first exception to the Commissioner’s report, is reversed. Of course the report stands confirmed.

Chancellors De Sausstjre, Johnson and Harper, and Justices Gantt, Richardson, O’Neael, Evans and Butler, concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 S.C. Eq. 429, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gordon-v-stevens-scctapp-1836.