McLain v. Allen
Decision Date | 02 July 1913 |
Citation | 79 S.E. 1,95 S.C. 152 |
Parties | McLAIN v. ALLEN et al. |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Kershaw County; Geo. W Gage, Judge.
Action by George W. McLain, administrator, against Edward Allen and others. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Defendants' exceptions are as follows:
This action was begun May, 1910; that is the reckoning point, May, 1910. Rose must have had that land for 10 full years before that date; that is to say, she must have had it, been on it, in May, 1900, and held it from May, 1900 to May, 1910--not only held it, but held it adversely against the owner.' Whereas, it is respectfully submitted, his honor, the circuit judge, should have left it to the jury to fix the point from which to reckon the 10 years' adverse holding, and should not have limited the adverse holding from May, 1900, to May, 1910.
W. B. De Loach, of Camden, for appellants. Kirkland & Kirkland and L. A. Wittkowsky, all of Camden, for respondent.
This was an action by the plaintiff against the defendant for the sale of real estate in the aid of personality to pay debts, etc., and the appellant, Rose Woodside, was made a party to that suit, and made answer denying the allegations of the complaint, and set up adverse possession in her of the land in dispute. The case came for trial at the November term of the court for Kershaw county before Judge Gage in November 1912. Upon the trial his honor submitted to the jury certain issues, and the finding by the jury was against the contention of the appellant, and after entry of judgment she appealed, and asks reversal on five exceptions, which should be set out in the report of the case.
The first exception alleges error in the admission of certain testimony of the witness George McLain by reference to what took place. Objection was made to only two questions, to wit "Did you ever receive rent, before Henry Davis died, from the house, from anybody?" Answer: "From Mr. Moore." "Who...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Neustadt v. Coline Oil Co.
...of such witnesses can be produced in court, and from it the triors can find such facts as they think it proves." And in McLain v. Woodside, 95 S.C. 152, 79 S.E. 1, 2, citing Hoyt v. Lightbody, it was said: "The exception imputes error in admitting over appellants' objection to the declarati......