Skip to main content
· 11/28/1892

Gardner v. Cheatham

Citations

  • 37 S.C. 73
  • 16 S.E. 368
  • 1892 S.C. LEXIS 50

Syllabus

<p>1. Judicial Sale—Purchaser.—A purchaser at a judicial sale is bound, at his peril, to see that the court ordering the sale had jurisdiction of the subject matter, and that all proper parties were before the court when the order was made.</p> <p>2. Transfer of Equity Causes in 1869.—Defendants to a suit for the settlement of an estate, which was regularly pending in the old Court of Equity and which appeared upon the equity docket in 1867, 1868, and 1870, and in which a consent order of reference was passed by the judge of the Court of Common Pleas on January 21, 1871, are not bound by an order of sale ' of the Court of Probate, dated December 6, 1870, and a sale and deed thereunder on January 2, 1871, it not appearing that the cause had ever been transferred to the Court of Probate, or that defendants consented to the order.</p> <p>3. Apparent Defect—Collateral Attack..—The error in the decree of the Probate Court appearing upon the face of the record, the validity of the decree may be disputed in a subsequent proceeding.</p> <p>4. Evidence—Records Offered and Attacked.—Where plaintiffs claim partition and defendants claim full title, the plaintiffs may assail a judgment and a deed thereunder which they had introduced in evidence to show the ground of defendants’ claim.</p> <p>5. Evidence—Proof as to Tribunal.—The issue being whether a cause had been transferred from the old Court of Equity to the Court of Common Pleas or to the Court of Probate, it was competent for one of the attorneys of record in that cause to testify as to which tribunal he appeared in and litigated for his clients.</p> <p>6. Ibid—Record.—Where the order of the Probate Court showed on its face no consent by defendants’ attorney, the Circuit Judge erred in holding the contrary. *</p> <p>7. Evidence—Issues.—Knowledge by the attorney of record of the existence of the order not being in issue, evidence upon this point was properly excluded.</p> <p>8. Ibid—Service oe Summons.'—Whether a party has

Judges: McGowan, McIvee, Pore

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.