Helpful Hints
  • (1) You can search the entire content of Dean’s by phrase or by individual words. Just type your keywords into the search box and then pull down the search icon on the right and choose the option you need: search by word or by phrase or reset the content.
  • (2) Double click on a word in the content of a definition, and if the word is listed as a keyword in Dean’s, it will look that word up.
  • (3) You can use the search function to help jump the scrolling function. Simply type the first 2-3 letters into the search box then hit enter on your keyboard and the scroll will go to those Keywords that begin with those letters and allow you to scroll from there.

 South Carolina courts have long held that the statute of limitations does not apply to actions in equity. See Anderson v. Purvis, 211 S.C. 255, 44 S.E.2d 611 (1947); Anderson v. Purvis, 220 S.C. 259, 67 S.E.2d 80 (1951) (holding that the Court's power to do equity transcends the limitations of the statute of limitations). Dixon v. Dixon, 362 S.C. 388, 400, 608 S.E.2d 849, 855 (2005); see also Parr v. Parr, 268 S.C. 58, 67, 231 S.E.2d 695, 699 (1977) ('The action of the plaintiffs is one in equity. Therefore, the trial judge correctly ruled that neither statute of limitations is applicable.'); McKinnon v. Summers, 224 S.C. 331, 336-37, 79 S.E.2d 146, 148 (1953) (observing the statute of limitations for law cases applies only by analogy to a court of equity); Parrott v. Dickson, 151 S.C. 114, 122, 148 S.E. 704, 707 (1929) ('Certainly, the statute of [l]imitations is not applicable, since this is a case in equity.'); Fanning v. Bogacki, 111 S.C. 376, 381, 98 S.E. 137, 138 (1919) (considering laches, not the statute of limitations, in an equitable matter); Blackwell v. Ryan, 21 S.C. 112, 126 (1884) (observing ...

Register or login to access full content