Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1944

Boykin v. Capehart

Supreme Court of South Carolina · Decided October 3, 1944 · Chiee, Baker, Messrs, Fishburne, -Stukes, Tayeor, Oxner

31 S.E.2d 506; 205 S.C. 276; 1944 S.C. LEXIS 80 (South Eastern Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. Henry Savage, Jr. , of Camden, S.C. and Mr. C. T. Graydon , of Columbia, S.C. Counsel for Appellant, cite: As to Sufficiency of Description In Will To Identify Property Devised: 106 N.C. 395 , 11 S.E., 248 ; 32 S.C. L. (1 Strob.), 8; 31 S.C. 606 , 9 S.E., 982 ; 183 S.C. 509 , Code of S.C. 1942, Sec. 409; 20 R.C.L., 712. Messrs. Robinson Robinson, and Messrs. Thomas, Cain Black , all of Columbia, S.C. Counsel for Respondents cite: As to Parol Testimony Of Testator's Declarations In Aid Of Description Of Lands Devised: 111 S.C. 516 , 99 S.E., 108 ; 170 S.C. 521 , 171 S.E., 32 ; 198 S.C. 355 , 17 S.E.2d 869 ; 176 S.C. 335 , 180 S.E., 188 ; 31 S.C. 606 , 9 S.E., 982 ; Jones On Evidence, 3rd. Ed., p. 689, Secs. 450, 455.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

The Court is satisfied, from a careful study of the questions presented by this appeal, that Judge Bellinger correctly disposed of all issues involved in the case. The decree of the Circuit Court, the order refusing a new trial, and the order confirming the survey and plat of the boundary line, set forth fully the history of the litigation. We are in accord with the reasoning and conclusions of Judge Bellinger in his decree and orders, and affirm the judgment of the lower Court.

Judgment affirmed.

Mr. Chiee Justice Baker and Messrs. Associate Justices Fishburne,-StukEs^ Tayeor, and Oxner concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.