Gardner v. Coker

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Gardner v. Coker

192 S.E. 151, 184 S.C. 190, 1937 S.C. LEXIS 148

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJune 14, 1937

Docket14499

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 192 S.E. 151 (Gardner v. Coker) 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

Gardner v. Coker, 192 S.E. 151, 184 S.C. 190, 1937 S.C. LEXIS 148 (S.C. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Carter.

This action by the plaintiff, C. E. Gardner, as Receiver, against the defendants, A. M. Coker, as Receiver of the Bank of Darlington, Inc., Geo. H. Edwards, as alleged trustee, and Theola Gandy, Christine Gandy, Thomas Gandy, Rogers Gandy, and Melvin Gandy, as beneficiaries of the alleged trust, defendants, of whom Geo. H. Edwards, trus *194 tee, and Theola Gandy, Christine Gandy, Thomas Gandy, Rogers Gandy, and Melvin Gandy are appellants, and A. M. Coker, as Receiver, is respondent, was commenced in the Court of Common Pleas for Darlington County, June 26, 1936, for the purpose of determining the ownership to certain bonds and a contract in the hands of the Receiver, the said C. E. Gardner. In his answer, the said A. M. Coker, as Receiver, served his answer upon the other defendants, claiming that as such Receiver he was owner of the property and the securities involved, and asked that his claim be adjudged to be paramount and asked that the property involved, or the proceeds derived therefrom, be applied to the payment of a judgment against L. K. Kirven. The answer of the said George H. Edwards was also served upon the plaintiff and also upon the defendant, the said A. M. Coker, as Receiver. In this answer of George H. Edwards he set forth his claim to the bonds and the contract and property involved, as trustee for the other defendants, and asked that he be adjudged to be the owner and holder of the property involved for the benefit of his cestuis que trustent. Certain other defendants adopted the answer of the said George H. Edwards.

The case was heard by his Honor, E. C. Dennis, Judge of the Fourth Circuit at his chambers. His Honor, Judge Dennis, after fully considering the testimony in the case and the matters involved, issued his decree in the cause, dated December 24, 1936. From the decree of Judge Dennis the defendants-appellants, pursuant to due notice, appealed to this Court upon the several grounds set forth in the exceptions.

We are satisfied that his Honor, Judge Dennis, reached the right conclusion in the case. The exceptions are, therefore, overruled, and the judgment of the lower Court affirmed.

Mr. Chief Justice StabeEr and Messrs. Justices Bonham, Baker and FishburnE 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 Carter.

This action by the plaintiff, C. E. Gardner, as Receiver, against the defendants, A. M. Coker, as Receiver of the Bank of Darlington, Inc., Geo. H. Edwards, as alleged trustee, and Theola Gandy, Christine Gandy, Thomas Gandy, Rogers Gandy, and Melvin Gandy, as beneficiaries of the alleged trust, defendants, of whom Geo. H. Edwards, trus *194 tee, and Theola Gandy, Christine Gandy, Thomas Gandy, Rogers Gandy, and Melvin Gandy are appellants, and A. M. Coker, as Receiver, is respondent, was commenced in the Court of Common Pleas for Darlington County, June 26, 1936, for the purpose of determining the ownership to certain bonds and a contract in the hands of the Receiver, the said C. E. Gardner. In his answer, the said A. M. Coker, as Receiver, served his answer upon the other defendants, claiming that as such Receiver he was owner of the property and the securities involved, and asked that his claim be adjudged to be paramount and asked that the property involved, or the proceeds derived therefrom, be applied to the payment of a judgment against L. K. Kirven. The answer of the said George H. Edwards was also served upon the plaintiff and also upon the defendant, the said A. M. Coker, as Receiver. In this answer of George H. Edwards he set forth his claim to the bonds and the contract and property involved, as trustee for the other defendants, and asked that he be adjudged to be the owner and holder of the property involved for the benefit of his cestuis que trustent. Certain other defendants adopted the answer of the said George H. Edwards.

The case was heard by his Honor, E. C. Dennis, Judge of the Fourth Circuit at his chambers. His Honor, Judge Dennis, after fully considering the testimony in the case and the matters involved, issued his decree in the cause, dated December 24, 1936. From the decree of Judge Dennis the defendants-appellants, pursuant to due notice, appealed to this Court upon the several grounds set forth in the exceptions.

We are satisfied that his Honor, Judge Dennis, reached the right conclusion in the case. The exceptions are, therefore, overruled, and the judgment of the lower Court affirmed.

Mr. Chief Justice StabeEr and Messrs. Justices Bonham, Baker and FishburnE concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 S.E. 151, 184 S.C. 190, 1937 S.C. LEXIS 148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gardner-v-coker-sc-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack