Smyth v. Brunson

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Smyth v. Brunson

105 S.E. 893, 115 S.C. 385, 1920 S.C. LEXIS 235

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedDecember 20, 1920

Docket10548

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 105 S.E. 893 (Smyth v. Brunson) 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

Smyth v. Brunson, 105 S.E. 893, 115 S.C. 385, 1920 S.C. LEXIS 235 (S.C. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Watts.

This is an action brought against defendants, ’ Brunson and Peace, November 17, 1913, to recover $445.46. These defendants served notice on Thomas Harrison to come in and defend the title. Within due time he answered denying the allegations of th.e complaint. An order of reference was agreed upon and the case was heard by the master, who rendered his report June 12, 1917, finding the allegations of the complaint to be true and giving judgment for the plaintiff. To this report the defendant, Thomas Harrison, excepted, and the case was heard by Hon. T. J. Mauldin, Circuit Judge, who filed a decree on July 21, 1919, sustaining the exceptions to the master’s report and dismissing the complaint.

*390 1 The exceptions, six in number, impute error of fact and of law on the part of his Honor. This being a law case, his Honor’s finding of fact must be sustained, as there is plenty of evidence to support his finding.

The evidence shows that the lot was not sold by front foot or square foot. It was sold in gross for a certain sum.

2 This case is controlled by Jones v. Bauskett, 2 Speer, star page 68, cited with approval in Shuler v. Williams, 112 S. C. 349, 99 S. E. 819, and by Shuler v. Williams.

All exceptions are overruled, and judgment affirmed.

The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Gage absent on account of sickness.

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 action brought against defendants, ’ Brunson and Peace, November 17, 1913, to recover $445.46. These defendants served notice on Thomas Harrison to come in and defend the title. Within due time he answered denying the allegations of th.e complaint. An order of reference was agreed upon and the case was heard by the master, who rendered his report June 12, 1917, finding the allegations of the complaint to be true and giving judgment for the plaintiff. To this report the defendant, Thomas Harrison, excepted, and the case was heard by Hon. T. J. Mauldin, Circuit Judge, who filed a decree on July 21, 1919, sustaining the exceptions to the master’s report and dismissing the complaint.

*390 1 The exceptions, six in number, impute error of fact and of law on the part of his Honor. This being a law case, his Honor’s finding of fact must be sustained, as there is plenty of evidence to support his finding.

The evidence shows that the lot was not sold by front foot or square foot. It was sold in gross for a certain sum.

2 This case is controlled by Jones v. Bauskett, 2 Speer, star page 68, cited with approval in Shuler v. Williams, 112 S. C. 349, 99 S. E. 819, and by Shuler v. Williams.

All exceptions are overruled, and judgment affirmed.

The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Gage absent on account of sickness.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 S.E. 893, 115 S.C. 385, 1920 S.C. LEXIS 235, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smyth-v-brunson-sc-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack