Case Name: TAYLOR v. JACKSON
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1912-07-22
Citations: 92 S.C. 113
Docket Number: 8269
Parties: TAYLOR v. JACKSON.
Judges: Mr. Justice Woods absent.
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 92
Pages: 113–114

Head Matter:
8269
TAYLOR v. JACKSON.
Appeal — Esuity.—Findings of fact in an issue in equity .not shown by appellant to be against the preponderance of the evidence will not be disturbed.
Before Copes, J., Dillon, October term, 1911.
Affirmed.
Action by E. V. Taylor and Austin Hamilton against Thomas Jackson and Nedie Jackson. Plaintiffs appeal.
Messrs. Gibson & Muller, for appellants.
Mr. James R. Coggeshall, contra.
July 22, 1912.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Fraser.
The plaintiffs-appellants brought action in this case against the defendants-respondents for a tract of forty acres of land, and alleged that the defendants are in the unlawful possession of said land and wrongfully withhold the possession of the same from the plaintiffs.
The defendants claim that the defendant, Nedie Jackson, is in the lawful possession and is the equitable owner and is entitled to specific performance of an agreement to convey made by one W. W. Hamilton, Sr., the immediate grantor of the plaintiffs, and that the plaintiffs took their title with full knowledge of the equity of the defendant, Nedie Jackson.
The case was withdrawn from the jury by consent of counsel and tried upon the equitable issues by Judge Robert Aldrich, the then presiding Judge.
After reading carefully all the evidence and arguments of counsel, we do not see that the evidence preponderates against the findings of fact by the Circuit Judge.
There are nine exceptions, but they all raise questions of fact.
In the case of Boatright v. Crosby, 83 S. C. 191, the Court says: "The burden rested upon the appellant to show error, on the part of his Honor, the Circuit Judge, in his finding that the deed was intended as a mortgage. The testimony is conflicting upon every material fact; and the appellant has failed to satisfy this Court that the preponderance of the evidence is in his favor.
"It would subserve no useful purpose to narrate the details of testimony."
The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed
Mr. Justice Woods absent.