Myers v. Burnsides

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Myers v. Burnsides

71 S.E. 977, 90 S.C. 186, 1911 S.C. LEXIS 173

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedDecember 19, 1911

Docket8059

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 71 S.E. 977 (Myers v. Burnsides) 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

Myers v. Burnsides, 71 S.E. 977, 90 S.C. 186, 1911 S.C. LEXIS 173 (S.C. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion in -this case was filed on August 10, 1911, but remittitur held up on petition- for rehearing until-

The opinion of the Oou-rt was delivered by ’

*187 Mr. Justice Hydrick.

1 This is an ¡action at law to recover possession of real estate wbidhi plaintiff claims as heir of Baron DeKalb Myers. Byi consent, the issues were tried by the Court upon the testimony, which was taken and reported by the master. The Court found: 1. That the evidence did not warrant the finding that title was ever in Baron DeKalb Myers: 2. That plaintiff is an illegitimate son of Baron DeKalb Myers, and therefore not his heir. 8. That plaintiff is estopped by the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas for Richland county in the case of Josephine Moore v. Jane Myers et al., to which action he was a party, and in which it was adjudged that he was illegitimate and not an heir of Baron DeKalb Myers, and had no interest in the land in dispute in that action, which is the same land herein sued for.

These findings are .all supported by the ‘evidence, and are, therefore, not reviewable by this Court.

Affirmed.

2 Petition for rehearing- dismissed by formal order filed December 19, 1911.

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

The opinion in -this case was filed on August 10, 1911, but remittitur held up on petition- for rehearing until-

The opinion of the Oou-rt was delivered by ’

*187 Mr. Justice Hydrick.

1 This is an ¡action at law to recover possession of real estate wbidhi plaintiff claims as heir of Baron DeKalb Myers. Byi consent, the issues were tried by the Court upon the testimony, which was taken and reported by the master. The Court found: 1. That the evidence did not warrant the finding that title was ever in Baron DeKalb Myers: 2. That plaintiff is an illegitimate son of Baron DeKalb Myers, and therefore not his heir. 8. That plaintiff is estopped by the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas for Richland county in the case of Josephine Moore v. Jane Myers et al., to which action he was a party, and in which it was adjudged that he was illegitimate and not an heir of Baron DeKalb Myers, and had no interest in the land in dispute in that action, which is the same land herein sued for.

These findings are .all supported by the ‘evidence, and are, therefore, not reviewable by this Court.

Affirmed.

2 Petition for rehearing- dismissed by formal order filed December 19, 1911.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 S.E. 977, 90 S.C. 186, 1911 S.C. LEXIS 173, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/myers-v-burnsides-sc-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack