PARKER v. HORTON

Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Report a problem

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

10422

Attorney(S)

Mr. W.B. DeLoach, for appellants, cites: Sale of lands for taxes under tax execution issued in name of wrong party is void; and placing void titles on the record will draw to them no vitality: 79 S.C. 517; 80 S.C. 29; 84 S.C. 1; 95 S.C. 301; 34 S.C. 364. Mr. C.L. Prince, for respondents, cites: Tax sale should be sustained if assessment was in such name or with such description as to give notice to owners, even if it not be technically correct: 67 S.C. 535; 79 S.C. 517; 3 Rich. 27; Cooley Taxation 471; 80 U.S. 510; Black Tax Titles 110.

Are you a practicing lawyer?

Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.

Upload pleading to use the new AI search

Click here to upload

Cites

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

10422

Attorney(S)

Mr. W.B. DeLoach, for appellants, cites: Sale of lands for taxes under tax execution issued in name of wrong party is void; and placing void titles on the record will draw to them no vitality: 79 S.C. 517; 80 S.C. 29; 84 S.C. 1; 95 S.C. 301; 34 S.C. 364. Mr. C.L. Prince, for respondents, cites: Tax sale should be sustained if assessment was in such name or with such description as to give notice to owners, even if it not be technically correct: 67 S.C. 535; 79 S.C. 517; 3 Rich. 27; Cooley Taxation 471; 80 U.S. 510; Black Tax Titles 110.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

PARKER v. HORTON.

June 28, 1920. The opinion of the Court was delivered by

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE GARY.

The facts are stated in the decree of his Honor, which, together with the exceptions, will be reported.

The respondent's attorneys in their written argument concede that there is but one issue in the case, and that is whether the fact that the lands were returned as the property of Nancy Hough's estate, and not as the estate of Isaac Hough rendered the title of the purchaser void.

The case of Taylor v. Strauss, 95 S.C. 295, 78 S.E. 883, is conclusive of this question, and shows that his Honor, the Circuit Judge, was in error.

Reversed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

PARKER v. HORTON.

Comments