Haselden v. Haselden

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Haselden v. Haselden

71 S.E. 232, 89 S.C. 4, 1911 S.C. LEXIS 213

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedMay 9, 1911

Docket7905

StatusPublished

This text of 71 S.E. 232 (Haselden v. Haselden) 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

Haselden v. Haselden, 71 S.E. 232, 89 S.C. 4, 1911 S.C. LEXIS 213 (S.C. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Gary.

This is an action for admeasurement of dower.

*9 The facts are fully stated, in the decree of his Honor the Circuit Judge.

3 The third assignment of error is as follows: “Because his Honor, showed a misapprehension of the evidence in this, he says, the deed from the children to the mother, ‘does not (sic) declare that the land so conveyed, is the dower of the said Rebecca, from the landed estate of her late husband James H. Haselden.’ Whereas, by an inspection of the deed, before the Court, it appears expressly stated in the deed, that this property is set off as dower, in the lands of her husband. Therein he erred.”

It appears that the error was merely clerical and that the Circuit Judge intended that the word “only” should1 be inserted between the words “not” and “declare.”

We do not deem it necessary to consider any other exception specifically.

For the reasons assigned by the Circuit Judge, the said decree is affirmed.

Mr. Justice; Woods concurs in the result.

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 Gary.

This is an action for admeasurement of dower.

*9 The facts are fully stated, in the decree of his Honor the Circuit Judge.

3 The third assignment of error is as follows: “Because his Honor, showed a misapprehension of the evidence in this, he says, the deed from the children to the mother, ‘does not (sic) declare that the land so conveyed, is the dower of the said Rebecca, from the landed estate of her late husband James H. Haselden.’ Whereas, by an inspection of the deed, before the Court, it appears expressly stated in the deed, that this property is set off as dower, in the lands of her husband. Therein he erred.”

It appears that the error was merely clerical and that the Circuit Judge intended that the word “only” should1 be inserted between the words “not” and “declare.”

We do not deem it necessary to consider any other exception specifically.

For the reasons assigned by the Circuit Judge, the said decree is affirmed.

Mr. Justice; Woods concurs in the result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 S.E. 232, 89 S.C. 4, 1911 S.C. LEXIS 213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haselden-v-haselden-sc-1911.