Groce v. Groce

127 S.E. 719, 131 S.C. 416, 1925 S.C. LEXIS 152
Supreme Court of South Carolina·Decided May 6, 1925·No. 11760·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Watts.

The decree of Judge Townsend is satisfactory to this Court under the authorities quoted by him (Dicks v. Cassels, 100 S. C., 341; 84 S. E., 878. Kerr v. Kennedy, 105 S. C., 496, 500, 505; 90 S. E., 177. Joyner v. Hoffman, 59 S. C., 535; 38 S. E., 174), and also Cromwell v. Simons (C. C. A.), 280 F., 663; 671. Van Horn v. Demarest, 76 N. J. Eq., 386; 77 A., 354. Bolling v. Bolling’s Adm’r, 146 Ky., 316; 142 S. W., 387, Ann. Cas., 1913C, 306. Armstrong’s Adm’r v. Shannon, 177 Ky., 547; 197 S. W., 950, and it is incumbent that the appellant should satisfy this Court of the correctness of his contention by the preponderance of the evidence, which he has failed to do.

It is the judgment of this Court that the judgment of the Circuit Court be affirmed.

Mr. Chiee Justice Gary and Messrs. Justices Fraser and Marion and Mr. Acting Associate Justice Jas. W. Johnson concur. Mr. Justice Cothran did not participate.

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

Groce v. Groce, 127 S.E. 719, 131 S.C. 416, 1925 S.C. LEXIS 152 (S.C. 1925).

127 S.E. 719 (Groce v. Groce) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

McMillan v. King
7 S.E.2d 521 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1940)