« AnteriorContinuar »
Logan et al., Boykin et al. v..
Major, Dingle v.
Malloy v. Douglass
Mattison et al., Ellison et al. v..
Meier v. Kornahrens
Murphy, State v..
McCay, Wren v.
Military Art Novelty Co. v. Fayonsky.
Miller v. Goodwin et al..
Moore v. Arthur et al..
Moseley, Wilson v....
Merchants and Planters Bank of Union v. Hunter et al. 394
Middleburg Mills, Rikard v...
Middleton v. Cockfield
McDowell v. Southern Ry. Co...
McElroy et al., Lemmon v.
McKenzie v. Southern Ry. Co. et al. .
lingham et al. v..
Nesbitt Auto Co. v. Norris...
Nesbitt Auto Co. v. Whitlock et al..
Norris, Nesbitt Auto Co. v...
National City Bank v. Huey & Martin Drug Co. et al.. 333 National Council, Jr. Order of Amer. Mechanics, Dil
Oates v. Fountain
Orangeburg, City of, Holman v..
Orr, Allen v.
Ouiga Realty Co., Price v...
Palmetto National Bank of Columbia, Wilson v...
Raymon v. Raymon
Ready v. Atlantic Coast L. R. R. Co...
Rikard v. Middleburg Mills.
Rion et al., Wateree Power Co. v..
Sanders v. Barnwell Lumber Co...
Scott et al. v. Wiggins et al...
Seaboard Air Line Railway Co., Gray v.
Shaw v. Fisher
Sloan v. Glenn
Smoak, Murph v..
Southern Railway Co., Dial v..
Southern Railway Co., Harmon v..
State v. Bates
State v. Blackstone
State v. Brown
State v. Breuer
Southern Railway Co. et al., Cline v..
Southern Railway Co., Jackson Tweed Lumber Co. v. 236
Southern Railway Co., McDowell v...
Tucker and Whaley, State v...
Williams et al., Blackmon v....
Williams v. Workman
Winnsboro Granite Corporation et al., Beauchamp v... 522
Wood, Awtrey v..
Wren v. McCay
CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Justices of the Supreme Court During the Period Comprised in this Volume.
HON. EUGENE B. GARY, CHIEF JUSTICE.
GLENN v. WALKER.
(100 S. E. 706.)
1. ADVERSE POSSESSION-EVIDENCE IN EJECTMENT BY PURCHASER FROM PROBATE COURT.-In an action to recover possession of land, where plaintiff introduced probate Court records relative to settlement of the estate of one who was common source of title of the parties, among which was an order for sale of land in dispute and a report of sale to plaintiff's remote grantor, and it appeared that the deed from the probate Judge to such grantor had been lost, the offer in evidence of a record of a mortgage given by such grantor to the probate Judge more than 20 years prior to the action was relevant and competent; for after a lapse of 20 years a grant to such mortgagor would be presumed.
1-S. C. 113