Windham v. Lafferty

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Windham v. Lafferty

65 S.E. 526, 83 S.C. 446, 1909 S.C. LEXIS 175

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedSeptember 21, 1909

Docket7290

StatusPublished

This text of 65 S.E. 526 (Windham v. Lafferty) 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

Windham v. Lafferty, 65 S.E. 526, 83 S.C. 446, 1909 S.C. LEXIS 175 (S.C. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Hydricic.

This is an action for partition. Certain of the defendants set up an independent claim of title in themselves to the land sought to be partitioned. At the conclusion of the testimony offered by the plaintiffs, these defendants moved the Court for a nonsuit, which was granted, and judgment was entered accordingly.

This Court has frequently decided that it is error to grant a nonsuit in such a case. Woolfolk v. Graniteville, 22 S. C., 332; McClenaghan v. McEachern, 47 S. C., 446, 25 S. E., 296; Barnes v. Rodgers, 54 S. C., 115, 31 S. E., 885; Gilreath v. Furman, 57 S. C., 289, 35 S. E., 516; Railway v. Beaudrot, 63 S. C., 366, 41 S. E., 299.

If the party claiming partition offers no testimony tending to establish his claim, a motion to direct the verdict is the proper remedy. Barnes v. Rodgers, and Gilreath v. Furman, supra.

The judgment of nonsuit is reversed and a new trial granted.

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