Muir v. Thomson

Citations

• 28 S.C. 499
• 6 S.E. 309
• 1888 S.C. LEXIS 76

Syllabus

<p>1. After plaintiff commenced her action for partition, defendant instituted his action against the public escheator for the partition of the same proport3r, ignoring the plaintiff’s claim, and then answered in the first action, denying that plaintiff had any interest in the property. Held, that the plaintiff w-as properly permitted to file an amended and supplemental complaint alleging these proceedings.</p> <p>2. And this defendant was properly enjoined from proceeding with his action, especially so after notification of escheat filed by the'escheator.</p> <p>3. But the legislature having prescribed the mode of proceeding to determine the question of escheat, no other mode can be recognized ; the escheator, therefore, was not a proper party to this (the first) action, and there was no error in refusing' to enjoin his proceeding under the statute.</p> <p>4. Whether there can be escheat where there is a will, may property be determined only in the proceeding for escheat.</p> <p>5. It seems that a notice of appeal from an order refusing an injunction does not operate as a stay of the matter sought to be enjoined.</p>