Blohme v. Lynch

Citations

• 26 S.C. 300
• 2 S.E. 136
• 1887 S.C. LEXIS 48

Syllabus

<p>1. A judgment entered in October, 1866, had priority of lien over a-mortgage given in September, 1866, but not recorded until January, 1867.</p> <p>2. The trial judge may- determine whether there is any testimony pertinent to an issue involved, and if there be none, may instruct the jury as to the legal consequences of its absence. Thus, there being no testimony of any agreement on the part of a purchaser under a junior lien, to preserve senior liens, the judge did ndt err in refusing to submit to the jury the question whether the prior liens had been preserved.</p> <p>3. Where plaintiff claimed land through a purchase under a junior judgment, and defendant through a subsequent sale under a senior judgment against the same person, whether the purchaser at the first sale knew of an intermediate mortgage was wholly irrelevant to the issue.</p> <p>4. A sale by the sheriff under a junior judgment divests the lien of a senior judgment.</p> <p>5. A grantor, as against her grantee, is not an incompetent witness under section 400 of the Code, to prove the declarations of one deceased, under whom both parties to the cause derived their title.</p> <p>6. But as the rights of the parties depended upon written instruments, such testimony would have been immaterial, and therefore its rejection furnishes -no ground for a new trial.</p>