Skip to main content
· 3/22/1884

Strickland v. Bridges

Citations

  • 21 S.C. 21
  • 1884 S.C. LEXIS 67

Syllabus

<p>1. The sole heir at law of a distributee of an intestate estate eannot maintain an action for account against the administrators of the first intestate. The action must he brought by an administrator of the distributee.</p> <p>2. An administrator de bonis non is a necessary party to an action for an account of the administration by the first administrators.</p> <p>3. It is error to rule that after twenty years the legal presumption of payment cannot be rebutted.</p> <p>4. No matter what were the reasons given, the refusal of a Circuit judge to permit an amendment, whereby a new party (not known to exist) would be substituted for a sole plaintiff, will not be disturbed.</p> <p>5. Jennings v. Springs, Bail. Eq., 181, explained, and its present authority doubted.</p>

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • “When a judgment was issued without jurisdiction or was procured by fraud, it is void and is subject to collateral attack.”
  • “collateral attacks on judgments conceivably can be mounted in either the court that issued the judgment or in a different court, as they involve any new ‘proceeding’ not encompassed within the proceeding in which the original judgment was entered”
  • describing collateral attacks in general

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: McIver

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.