Lanford v. Dowling

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Lanford v. Dowling

264 S.E.2d 840, 274 S.C. 396, 1980 S.C. LEXIS 356

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedApril 1, 1980

Docket21180

StatusPublished

This text of 264 S.E.2d 840 (Lanford v. Dowling) 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

Lanford v. Dowling, 264 S.E.2d 840, 274 S.C. 396, 1980 S.C. LEXIS 356 (S.C. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Ness, Justice:

This appeal is from an order directing appellant Mary L. Dowling to reconvey a remainder interest in certain real property and repay $25,286.93 plus interest from October 31, 1974, which she held in a constructive trust for the benefit of respondent Martha Lanford’s deceased husband.

A reference was held, but the master who presided over the hearing lost jurisdiction of the case and another was assigned to file the report. On appeal from his report, it was stipulated to the trial court the only questions involved were evidentiary and the trial judge concurred fully in the master’s findings. As those findings are supported by the greater weight of the evidence, we affirm whether we apply the one-or-two-judge rule. Se, e. g., Newton v. Boggs, S. C., 262 S. E. (2d) 741 (1980) ; Georgia R. R. Bank & Trust Co. v. Doolittle, 272 S. C. 249, 252 S. E. (2d) 556 (1979); Townes Associates, Ltd. v. City of Greenville, 266 S. C. 81, 221 S. E. (2d) 773 (1976). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Lewis, C. J., Littlejohn and Gregory, JJ., and Walter T. Cox, III, Acting Associate Justice, concur.

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

Ness, Justice:

This appeal is from an order directing appellant Mary L. Dowling to reconvey a remainder interest in certain real property and repay $25,286.93 plus interest from October 31, 1974, which she held in a constructive trust for the benefit of respondent Martha Lanford’s deceased husband.

A reference was held, but the master who presided over the hearing lost jurisdiction of the case and another was assigned to file the report. On appeal from his report, it was stipulated to the trial court the only questions involved were evidentiary and the trial judge concurred fully in the master’s findings. As those findings are supported by the greater weight of the evidence, we affirm whether we apply the one-or-two-judge rule. Se, e. g., Newton v. Boggs, S. C., 262 S. E. (2d) 741 (1980) ; Georgia R. R. Bank & Trust Co. v. Doolittle, 272 S. C. 249, 252 S. E. (2d) 556 (1979); Townes Associates, Ltd. v. City of Greenville, 266 S. C. 81, 221 S. E. (2d) 773 (1976). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Lewis, C. J., Littlejohn and Gregory, JJ., and Walter T. Cox, III, Acting Associate Justice, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 S.E.2d 840, 274 S.C. 396, 1980 S.C. LEXIS 356, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lanford-v-dowling-sc-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack