Gadsden v. Brown

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Gadsden v. Brown

17 S.C. Eq. 37

DecidedMay 15, 1843

StatusPublished

This text of 17 S.C. Eq. 37 (Gadsden v. Brown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gadsden v. Brown, 17 S.C. Eq. 37 (S.C. Ct. App. 1843).

Pincite

Opinion

Curia, per Dunkin, Ch.

This Court concur in the views of the Chancellor. So soon as Burbage and Pinck-ney éxécüted the release, an absolute title at law vested in the complainants, Brown & Wellsman. The defendant attempts to set up an e'quity, paramount to this title; on the ground of his payment to the former mortgagees. But there was no agreement that he should be subrogated to their rights as mortgagees; there was no assignment — -on the contrary, the defendant took other securities for his advancements. The authorities cited in the decree are conclusive that; under such circumstances, there is no right of subrogation, and no equity to take precedence of a subsisting mortgage-. The appeal is dismissed:

Harper, Ch., concurred. •Johnston, Ch., absent at the argument.

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

Curia, per Dunkin, Ch.

This Court concur in the views of the Chancellor. So soon as Burbage and Pinck-ney éxécüted the release, an absolute title at law vested in the complainants, Brown & Wellsman. The defendant attempts to set up an e'quity, paramount to this title; on the ground of his payment to the former mortgagees. But there was no agreement that he should be subrogated to their rights as mortgagees; there was no assignment — -on the contrary, the defendant took other securities for his advancements. The authorities cited in the decree are conclusive that; under such circumstances, there is no right of subrogation, and no equity to take precedence of a subsisting mortgage-. The appeal is dismissed:

Harper, Ch., concurred. •Johnston, Ch., absent at the argument.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 S.C. Eq. 37, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gadsden-v-brown-scctapp-1843.