Etheredge v. Porter

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Etheredge v. Porter

131 S.E. 768, 134 S.C. 71, 1926 S.C. LEXIS 15

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedMarch 2, 1926

Docket11926

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 131 S.E. 768 (Etheredge v. Porter) 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

Etheredge v. Porter, 131 S.E. 768, 134 S.C. 71, 1926 S.C. LEXIS 15 (S.C. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Cothran.

This is an action to set aside certain deeds executed by the defendant, Barbara E. Porter, which are alleged to have been executed in fraud of the rights of the plaintiff, a subsequent judgment creditor. The appeal is from a compulsory order of reference granted upon motion of the plaintiff over the protest and objection of the defendants.

It is settled by the decisions of this Court, notably Newell v. Blankenship, 130 S. C., 131; 125 S. E., 420, and Bank v. Foster, 132 S. C., 410; 129 S. E., 629, that a compulsory order of reference may be ordered only in cases coming within the equitable cognizance of the Court; and that even if the cause of action be deemed equitable, the Court has no power to compulsorily order a reference except under the circumstances detailed in Section 593 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1922, “where the trial of an issue of fact shall require the examination of a long account on either side.” The case presented does come within the provisions of the Code, and as a consequence the order of reference was erroneous.

The judgment of this-Court is that the order appealed from be -reversed.

Mr. Chief Justice Gary and Messrs. Justices Watts, BeEasE and StabeER concur.

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 Cothran.

This is an action to set aside certain deeds executed by the defendant, Barbara E. Porter, which are alleged to have been executed in fraud of the rights of the plaintiff, a subsequent judgment creditor. The appeal is from a compulsory order of reference granted upon motion of the plaintiff over the protest and objection of the defendants.

It is settled by the decisions of this Court, notably Newell v. Blankenship, 130 S. C., 131; 125 S. E., 420, and Bank v. Foster, 132 S. C., 410; 129 S. E., 629, that a compulsory order of reference may be ordered only in cases coming within the equitable cognizance of the Court; and that even if the cause of action be deemed equitable, the Court has no power to compulsorily order a reference except under the circumstances detailed in Section 593 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1922, “where the trial of an issue of fact shall require the examination of a long account on either side.” The case presented does come within the provisions of the Code, and as a consequence the order of reference was erroneous.

The judgment of this-Court is that the order appealed from be -reversed.

Mr. Chief Justice Gary and Messrs. Justices Watts, BeEasE and StabeER concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 S.E. 768, 134 S.C. 71, 1926 S.C. LEXIS 15, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/etheredge-v-porter-sc-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack