Chapman v. Smith

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Chapman v. Smith

130 S.E. 212, 133 S.C. 122, 1925 S.C. LEXIS 40

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedNovember 10, 1925

Docket11856

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 130 S.E. 212 (Chapman v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chapman v. Smith, 130 S.E. 212, 133 S.C. 122, 1925 S.C. LEXIS 40 (S.C. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Watts.

This is an action instituted in the Court of Common Pleas for Pickens County on a bond in penal sum of $250, dated July 11’, 1910, signed by guardian of estate of the minor, appellant, with two sureties, for the faithful administration by said guardian of said minor’s esatae of $111, and same was paid to said guardian upon his filing with Probate Court said bond. On May 25, 1917, guardian died, and no accounting of his acts was ever made by him to Probate Court, none appears in the record, no successor was ever appointed, and he died intestate, without estate, without legal representatives, and at time action brought without personal representative, other than plaintiff. Both sureties on bond have died, and plaintiff-appellant has become of age and brings this action to recoever $265; same being $111 as principal and $154 as interest at 7 per cent, for the time, on bond against respondents, who are the legal and personal representatives of one of said sureties; his estate being in process of administration.

Case was called for trial, and, without drawing a jury, Special Presiding. Judge Wolfe called for plaintiff’s complaint, read same together with defendant’s answer, and upon argument, and over protest of plaintiff’s counsel, dismissed said complaint forthwith, on the ground that the Court of Common Pleas had no jurisdiction, but that the Court of Probate had exclusive jurisdiction.

*124 The exceptions are sustained. The Court of Common Pleas had jurisdiction to try the cause under the Constitution. The powers of Courts of Equity have by the Constitution been vested in the Court of. Common Pleas, and the distinction between actions at law and proceedings in equity has been abolished. See Beatty v. National Surety Co. (S. C.), 128 S. E., 40.

The Probate Court does not have exclusive jurisdiction in settling estates. A guardian, trustee, executor, or administrator can be required to account and settle an estate in the Court of Common Pleas.

If an issue on the law side of the Court is presented, then the law side of the Court of Common Pleas tries the law issue. If an equity question is presented, then that is tried on the equity side of the Court of Common Pleas.

His Honor was in error, and judgment is reversed.

Messrs. Justices and Marion and Mr. Acting Associate Justice R. O. Purdy concur. Mr. Chief Justice Gary did not participate.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Watts.

This is an action instituted in the Court of Common Pleas for Pickens County on a bond in penal sum of $250, dated July 11’, 1910, signed by guardian of estate of the minor, appellant, with two sureties, for the faithful administration by said guardian of said minor’s esatae of $111, and same was paid to said guardian upon his filing with Probate Court said bond. On May 25, 1917, guardian died, and no accounting of his acts was ever made by him to Probate Court, none appears in the record, no successor was ever appointed, and he died intestate, without estate, without legal representatives, and at time action brought without personal representative, other than plaintiff. Both sureties on bond have died, and plaintiff-appellant has become of age and brings this action to recoever $265; same being $111 as principal and $154 as interest at 7 per cent, for the time, on bond against respondents, who are the legal and personal representatives of one of said sureties; his estate being in process of administration.

Case was called for trial, and, without drawing a jury, Special Presiding. Judge Wolfe called for plaintiff’s complaint, read same together with defendant’s answer, and upon argument, and over protest of plaintiff’s counsel, dismissed said complaint forthwith, on the ground that the Court of Common Pleas had no jurisdiction, but that the Court of Probate had exclusive jurisdiction.

*124 The exceptions are sustained. The Court of Common Pleas had jurisdiction to try the cause under the Constitution. The powers of Courts of Equity have by the Constitution been vested in the Court of. Common Pleas, and the distinction between actions at law and proceedings in equity has been abolished. See Beatty v. National Surety Co. (S. C.), 128 S. E., 40.

The Probate Court does not have exclusive jurisdiction in settling estates. A guardian, trustee, executor, or administrator can be required to account and settle an estate in the Court of Common Pleas.

If an issue on the law side of the Court is presented, then the law side of the Court of Common Pleas tries the law issue. If an equity question is presented, then that is tried on the equity side of the Court of Common Pleas.

His Honor was in error, and judgment is reversed.

Messrs. Justices and Marion and Mr. Acting Associate Justice R. O. Purdy concur. Mr. Chief Justice Gary did not participate.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 S.E. 212, 133 S.C. 122, 1925 S.C. LEXIS 40, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chapman-v-smith-sc-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack