Stent v. Executors of McLeod

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Stent v. Executors of McLeod

7 S.C. Eq. 355

DecidedFebruary 15, 1827

StatusPublished

This text of 7 S.C. Eq. 355 (Stent v. Executors of McLeod) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stent v. Executors of McLeod, 7 S.C. Eq. 355 (S.C. Ct. App. 1827).

Pincite

Opinion

Curia, per

Nott, J.

The court concur in opinion with the chancellor in this case. The first question has been considered as settled for many years by the case of Matthewes v. Matthewes, and Brevard v. Matthewes, and agreat many estates, it is said, have been settled in conformity with those decisions. The chancellor, withoutbeing aware of these decisions, has, after a very full investigation of the question, given the act the same construction, and we do not feel at liberty to call in question a principle so long decided and so long received as law. This opinion has been delayed under the expectation that the counsel would have argued the second ground made in the brief, as to the law of the domicil in relation to the personal property. But as they have declined doing so, the court proceed to express their concurrence with the chancellor o-n that question also. The decree is therefore affirmed.

Decree affirmed.

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

Curia, per

Nott, J.

The court concur in opinion with the chancellor in this case. The first question has been considered as settled for many years by the case of Matthewes v. Matthewes, and Brevard v. Matthewes, and agreat many estates, it is said, have been settled in conformity with those decisions. The chancellor, withoutbeing aware of these decisions, has, after a very full investigation of the question, given the act the same construction, and we do not feel at liberty to call in question a principle so long decided and so long received as law. This opinion has been delayed under the expectation that the counsel would have argued the second ground made in the brief, as to the law of the domicil in relation to the personal property. But as they have declined doing so, the court proceed to express their concurrence with the chancellor o-n that question also. The decree is therefore affirmed.

Decree affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 S.C. Eq. 355, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stent-v-executors-of-mcleod-scctapp-1827.