Harris v. Rice

126 S.E. 754, 131 S.C. 171, 1925 S.C. LEXIS 110
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedFebruary 21, 1925
Docket11676
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 126 S.E. 754 (Harris v. Rice) 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
Harris v. Rice, 126 S.E. 754, 131 S.C. 171, 1925 S.C. LEXIS 110 (S.C. 1925).

Opinions

February 21, 1925. The opinion of the Court was delivered by This is an appeal from a decree of Judge Rice. His decree will be reported.

The appellant by six exceptions alleges error. The exceptions should be overruled under South Carolina InsuranceCo. v. Kohn, 108 S.C. 475; 95 S.E., 65. Allgoodv. Spearman (S.C.), 118 S.E., 189. Prudon v. Williams,26 N.J. Eq., 210; Jones on Mortgages (3d Ed), §§ 1227, 759, 1713, 1721, 1710. Rice assumed the outstanding mortgage given to Love for $3,000.00, on January 2, 1920.

The judgment is modified to conform to the majority opinion.

MESSRS. JUSTICES FRASER and MARION, and MR. ACTING ASSOCIATE JUSTICE W.C. COTHRAN concur in part.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE GARY and MR. JUSTICE COTHRAN did not participate.

MR. ACTING ASSOCIATE JUSTICE W.C. COTHRAN: I concur in the general conclusion reached by Justice Watts, but I think the judgment of the Circuit Court should be modified to the extent of giving Rice credit for the full amount realized from the sale of the mortgaged property.

There is no provision in the bankrupt law for the foreclosure of a mortgage. The holder of a mortgage may either prove a secured claim before the Referee in Bankruptcy, or he may remain entirely out of that Court and pursue his remedy in the State Court. When his claim is proven and allowed by the Referee, the trustee is ordered to sell the mortgaged property free from incumbrances *Page 175 and the lien of the mortgage is transferred to the fund thereby received.

The costs and expenses allowed to be deducted from the purchase price accrued in the Bankrupt Court, and were not properly chargeable against the fund realized from the sale.Smith v. Au Gres Township, 150 F., 257; 80 C.C.A., 145; 9 L.R.A. (N.S.), 876. In re Anders Tel. Co. (D. C.), 136 F., 995. Mills v. Virginia-Carolina Lumber Co., 164 F., 168; 90 C.C.A., 154; 21 L.R.A. (N.S.), 901.In re Harralson, 179 F., 490; 103 C.C.A., 70; 29 L.R.A. (N.S.), 737.

MESSRS. JUSTICES FRASER and MARION concur.

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

Related

Jones v. Bates
127 S.E.2d 618 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1962)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
126 S.E. 754, 131 S.C. 171, 1925 S.C. LEXIS 110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-rice-sc-1925.