Knight v. Jones

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Knight v. Jones

76 S.E. 978, 93 S.C. 376, 1913 S.C. LEXIS 15

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJanuary 13, 1913

Docket8413

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 76 S.E. 978 (Knight v. Jones) 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

Knight v. Jones, 76 S.E. 978, 93 S.C. 376, 1913 S.C. LEXIS 15 (S.C. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Fraser.

This is an action for the cancellation of a deed made by Miss Susan Bramlett to her niece, Mrs. Kate Jones. The cause was tried before his Honor, Judge Gage. The four exceptions raise questions of fact. The decree of Judge Gage is SO' clear and so- amply sustained by the weight of the testimony, that it will not be necessary to consider the exceptions in detail.

From a careful reading of all the testimony, it is very evident to1 this Court that Miss Bramlett made just the disposition of her property that she intended to make, and secured for herself the means of living that might have failed if she had continued the indiscriminate use of her name in the signature of notes, checks and such papers at the bare request of all who1 seemed to have asked it. That she did not foresee the death of her niece, Mrs. Jones, may have been unfortunate and may not have been, but it can not invalidate the deed.

■ The exceptions are overruled and the decree appealed from affirmed.

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 Fraser.

This is an action for the cancellation of a deed made by Miss Susan Bramlett to her niece, Mrs. Kate Jones. The cause was tried before his Honor, Judge Gage. The four exceptions raise questions of fact. The decree of Judge Gage is SO' clear and so- amply sustained by the weight of the testimony, that it will not be necessary to consider the exceptions in detail.

From a careful reading of all the testimony, it is very evident to1 this Court that Miss Bramlett made just the disposition of her property that she intended to make, and secured for herself the means of living that might have failed if she had continued the indiscriminate use of her name in the signature of notes, checks and such papers at the bare request of all who1 seemed to have asked it. That she did not foresee the death of her niece, Mrs. Jones, may have been unfortunate and may not have been, but it can not invalidate the deed.

■ The exceptions are overruled and the decree appealed from affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 S.E. 978, 93 S.C. 376, 1913 S.C. LEXIS 15, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knight-v-jones-sc-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack