Case ID: sc_5/html/0335-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Wright, A. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HEARD APRIL TERM, 1874.
    Kibler vs. Bridges.
    A judgment of the Supreme Court settling the principle of law involved in the case is conclusive on the parties, and the question is not open for further consideration in the same case.
    Before MACKEY, J., at Lancaster, October Term, 1873.
    This was a second hearing of the case reported 3 S. C., 45.
    His Honor allowed the defendant to introduce evidence aliunde, both parol and written, to show that the twenty acres of land claimed as Mcllwain’s homestead was reserved from sale by the Commissioner in Equity, when he offered the land for sale under the decree for foreclosure, although the Commissioner’s deed of conveyance to the plaintiff contained no exception of the same.
    His Honor charged the jury that defendant, claiming under Mcllwain, was not estopped, by the decree for foreclosure and the order confirming the sale, from denying that a sale of the entire tract embraced in the deed was made, and that Section 7 of Order No. 10 operated as law at the date of the sale, and raised the presumption that the homestead of twenty acres was not sold.
    The verdict was for the defendant.
    The plaintiff appealed.
    
      Moore, for appellant.
    
      DePass & Glyburn, contra.
    
      Sept. 5, 1874.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Wright, A. J.

The views of the Court in regard to the legal principle by which this case must be determined have been so plainly and fully expressed in the opinion on the appeal from the first verdict, (3 S. C., 45,) that it is difficult to perceive how they could be misunderstood. The question of law involved, and on which alone the defense rested, was adjudged against the respondent, and this necessarily concludes him. Where the judgment of this Court has been so distinctly pronounced on a point on which alone the case must turn, we are not disposed, where it has not been followed, to enlarge upon the reasons which induced it.

The motion is granted.

Moses, C. J., and Willard, A. J., concurred.