Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1931-05-15
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently June 2002
3 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
¶2
The Court is satisfied with the conclusions of the Circuit Judge in this case and his order is therefore affirmed. A further consideration tending to sustain the order is this:
¶3
We apprehend that there could be no question of the duty of the plaintiff, in order to protect herself from the claim of a purchaser or incumbrancer of the property affected by the action, to file under Section 388, Code Civ. Proc., notice" of
lis pendens;
the action clearly being one “affecting the title to real property.” This may possibly be in order if the action could be held within the jurisdiction of Bamberg County; but the fact that it is an action “affecting the title to real property” strikes the Court as conclusive that it is an action for the determination of the plaintiff’s right or interest in the property, and therefore within the provisions of Section 376 of Code Civ. Proc.
¶4
The judgment of this Court is that the order appealed from be affirmed.
Mr. Chiee Justice Brease and Messrs. Justices StabrEr and Carter, and Mr. Acting Associate Justice John I. Cosgrove concur.
