From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McKenzie v. Long

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jun 29, 1917
107 S.C. 336 (S.C. 1917)

Opinion

9704

June 29, 1917.

Before SEASE, J., Hampton, October, 1916. Affirmed.

Action by J.A. McKenzie and others against Leon A. Long and others. From judgment for appellants, defendants appeal.

Mr. J.W. Vincent, for appellants, submits: Order of survey desirable but not required: 32 S.C. 534; 11 S.E. 390; Code 1912, section 3538, and cases cited; 3 McC. 84; 1 Hill 380; Cheves L. 119; 5 Rich. L. 13; 2 Strob. L. 60; 10 Rich. L. 395.

Mr. W.D. Connor, for respondents.


June 29, 1917. The opinion of the Court was delivered by


This is an appeal from an order of survey made by his Honor, Judge Sease, in an action for partition of certain lands described in the complaint in the case. The pleadings alone were before the Court when the motion was made. The defendants objected to the order asked for. We must assume that the lawyers in the case made some statement to the Court when the application was made and resisted.

Lawyers in a case are bound by any statement they make to the Judge who hears the case, and in the absence of anything that appears in the record before us we must assume that his Honor, in the wise exercise of the discretion vested in him, granted the order appealed from, and nothing shows to us that this discretion was erroneously exercised.

The appeal is dismissed.


Summaries of

McKenzie v. Long

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jun 29, 1917
107 S.C. 336 (S.C. 1917)
Case details for

McKenzie v. Long

Case Details

Full title:McKENZIE ET AL. v. LONG ET AL

Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina

Date published: Jun 29, 1917

Citations

107 S.C. 336 (S.C. 1917)
92 S.E. 1032

Citing Cases

Young v. Levy et al

As to One Party to Contract,Without Justification, Annulling Contract AfterOther Party Has Fully Performed:…

Virginia-Carolina Chemical Corp. v. Mills

Messrs. T.B. Lewis and E.S.C. Baker, for appellants, cite: Motion for continuance is discretionary: 50 S.C.…