Dixon v. Hockady

Citations

• 36 S.C. 60
• 15 S.E. 342
• 1892 S.C. LEXIS 80

Syllabus

<p>1. Forfeited Lands — Redemption.—The right given to the “owner” of any land which has been forfeited for non-payment of taxes, and “to those claiming under or through such owner or others having a legal and equitable interest therein,” to redeem, on payment of taxes, costs, and penalties, does not include the son-in law of the owner. Therefore, where a son-in-law of the owner paid the taxes, &c., on forfeited land, and took deed from the Sinking Fund Commission, the taxes wore extinguished and the land restored to the former owner, while the deed executed by the commission was ultra vires and void.</p> <p>2. Immaterial Error.- — -Whether parol evidence was forbidden by the statute of frauds to establish an agreement by the son-in-law to' redeem for the benefit of the owner, is an immaterial question, where such testimony has not been considered in the case.</p> <p>3. Demurrer — -The complaint by the owner, stating her ownership and defendant’s possession, and these circumstances supra under which the defendant acquired possession, sufficiently states a cause of action.</p>