Lee v. Street

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Lee v. Street

17 S.C. Eq. 373

DecidedDecember 15, 1843

StatusPublished

This text of 17 S.C. Eq. 373 (Lee v. Street) 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

Lee v. Street, 17 S.C. Eq. 373 (S.C. 1843).

Pincite

Opinion

Curia, per Johnson, Ch.

The Court concur in the judgment of the circuit Court. For the necessity of an administration on the estate of Terza Street, and making the administrator a party, I refer to the opinion of the Court delivered during the present Term in the case of David Buchan vs. James, administrator of James, and the cases therein referred to. The Act of 1839 prescribes the mode of proceeding in the Court of Ordinary, and has no application to the mode of proceeding here. Appeal dismissed.

Harper and Dunkin, Chancellors, concurred. J. Johnston, Ch. absent from indisposition.

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

Curia, per Johnson, Ch.

The Court concur in the judgment of the circuit Court. For the necessity of an administration on the estate of Terza Street, and making the administrator a party, I refer to the opinion of the Court delivered during the present Term in the case of David Buchan vs. James, administrator of James, and the cases therein referred to. The Act of 1839 prescribes the mode of proceeding in the Court of Ordinary, and has no application to the mode of proceeding here. Appeal dismissed.

Harper and Dunkin, Chancellors, concurred. J. Johnston, Ch. absent from indisposition.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 S.C. Eq. 373, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-v-street-sc-1843.