Irwin v. Brooks

Citations

• 19 S.C. 96
• 1883 S.C. LEXIS 60

Syllabus

<p>1. Five commissioners in dower met, examined the land and failed to agree the Probate judge ruled them and required a return to be made, but only three were served, and these three thereupon met without notice to the others, and made a return. Held, that the return was sufficient.</p> <p>2. The parties in interest are not allowed as matter of right to assail a return of commissioners in dower, where it has been fairly made and is unaffected by fraud, or error of law or fact; but the court may withhold confirmation from a return which, in its judgment, from any cause, does injustice.</p> <p>3. A decree of a Probate judge not approving, but, nevertheless, confirming a return of such commissioners, reversed upon the ground that the Probate judge erred in supposing that he was without power to set the return aside.</p> <p>4. The law now of force regulating costs governs an action commenced in 1872, but not determined prior to the act of 1880. 17 Stat. 296. Therefore, the demandant of dower in lands of her husband aliened during coverture is entitled to her costs, although the dower was not demanded before the institution of her suit.</p>