McKenzie v. Long

Supreme Court of South Carolina

McKenzie v. Long

92 S.E. 1032, 107 S.C. 336, 1917 S.C. LEXIS 114

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJune 29, 1917

Docket9704

StatusPublished

This text of 92 S.E. 1032 (McKenzie v. Long) 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

McKenzie v. Long, 92 S.E. 1032, 107 S.C. 336, 1917 S.C. LEXIS 114 (S.C. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Watts.

This is an appeal from an order of survey made by his Honor, Judge Sease, in an action for partition of certain lands described in the complaint in the case. The pleadings alone were before the Court when the motion was made. The defendants objected to the order asked for. We must assume that the lawyers in the case made some statement to the Court when the application was made and resisted.

1, 2 Rawyers in a case are bound by any statement they make to the Judge who hears the case, and in the absence of anything that appears in the record before us we must assume that his Honor, in the wise exercise of the discretion vested in him, granted the order appealed from, and nothing shows to us that this discretion was erroneously exercised.

The appeal is dismissed.

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 Watts.

This is an appeal from an order of survey made by his Honor, Judge Sease, in an action for partition of certain lands described in the complaint in the case. The pleadings alone were before the Court when the motion was made. The defendants objected to the order asked for. We must assume that the lawyers in the case made some statement to the Court when the application was made and resisted.

1, 2 Rawyers in a case are bound by any statement they make to the Judge who hears the case, and in the absence of anything that appears in the record before us we must assume that his Honor, in the wise exercise of the discretion vested in him, granted the order appealed from, and nothing shows to us that this discretion was erroneously exercised.

The appeal is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 S.E. 1032, 107 S.C. 336, 1917 S.C. LEXIS 114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mckenzie-v-long-sc-1917.