Fulmore v. Fulmore
| Decision Date | 20 December 1920 |
| Docket Number | 10546. |
| Citation | 105 S.E. 285,115 S.C. 213 |
| Parties | FULMORE ET AL. v. FULMORE ET AL. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Williamsburg County; Hayne F. Rice, Judge.
Action by Eleida V. Fulmore and another against Troy P. Fulmore and another. Demurrer to the complaint was overruled, and defendants appeal. Appeal dismissed.
Kelley & Hinds, of Kingstree, for appellants.
Arrowsmith, Muldrow, Bridges & Hicks, of Florence, for respondents.
This is an action for partition. The defendant demurred to the complaint on the ground that the complaint showed that the defendant had been in exclusive possession of the land long enough to presume a deed from its cotenants. The demurrer was overruled, and this appeal is from the order overruling the demurrer.
Demurrer is not available to the defendant. Section 119, Code of Procedure declares:
"But the objection that the action was not commenced within the time limited can only be taken by answer."
The appeal is dismissed.
GARY, C.J., and GAGE, J., absent on account of sickness.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Karres v. Pappas
...part at any time during the prolonged proceedings to so amend his answer. Code of Civil Procedure of 1932, Section 356; Fulmore v. Fulmore, 115 S.C. 213, 105 S.E. 285; Scovill v. Johnson, 190 S.C. 457, 3 S.E.2d These authorities leave no doubt that in order to have availed himself of the St......