Ives v. Rutland

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Ives v. Rutland

133 S.E. 539, 135 S.C. 173, 1926 S.C. LEXIS 83

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJune 4, 1926

Docket12006

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 133 S.E. 539 (Ives v. Rutland) 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

Ives v. Rutland, 133 S.E. 539, 135 S.C. 173, 1926 S.C. LEXIS 83 (S.C. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Watts.

This is an appeal from a decree of Judge Dennis made in-the cause. Judge Dennis’ decree states the facts and issues involved and will be reported.

There are 15 exceptions alleging error on the part of his Honor. The. issue is .the validity of the Rizer or Baltzegar mortgage. The Master found in favor of the appellant. Judge Dennis reversed the finding of the Master, and found that the mortgage had been paid and was not a lien on the land in controversy. He found in favor of the respondents. This question of fact found by the Circuit Judge has ample testimony to support the finding. The Baltzegar mortgage was paid by the Boltin mortgage, which was given to Wifi liams.

Williams had taken the Boltin mortgage for the full amount of the purchase money that Boltin was to pay Baltzegar, and agreed to finance the matter and pay the Baltzegar mortgage. He paid the bank which held it, and had the bank assign the mortgage to him. He had agreed to pay the mortgage, which he did, but instead of having the mortgage satisfied he had the bank assign it to him. The mortgage was paid and became á dead paper when Rizer took the Baltzegar mortgage by assignment from Williams, long after it was due. He took no- better title to it than Williams had. He took it subject to all existing defenses. Code 1922, Vol. 1, § 355; Code 1922, Vol. 3, § 3709. Patterson v. Robb, 38 S. C., 138; 17 S. E., 463; 19 L. R. A., 831. British American Mort. Co. v. Smith, 45 S. C., 83; 22 S. E., 747. Willoughby v. Ray, 131 S. C., 317; 127 S. E., 441. Woodrow v. Frederick (S. C.), 131 S. E., 598.

We see no error at all in the decree of Judge Dennis as complained of. It is strictly in accordance with the law applicable to the facts as found by him, and we have decided in a number of cases that it is incumbent *183 upon the appellant to satisfy this Court that the finding of the Circuit Court is against the preponderance of the testimony. In this case the appellant has failed to do this.

All the exceptions are overruled, and the judgment is affirmed.

Mr. Chiee Justice Gary and Messrs. Justices Cothran, 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 Watts.

This is an appeal from a decree of Judge Dennis made in-the cause. Judge Dennis’ decree states the facts and issues involved and will be reported.

There are 15 exceptions alleging error on the part of his Honor. The. issue is .the validity of the Rizer or Baltzegar mortgage. The Master found in favor of the appellant. Judge Dennis reversed the finding of the Master, and found that the mortgage had been paid and was not a lien on the land in controversy. He found in favor of the respondents. This question of fact found by the Circuit Judge has ample testimony to support the finding. The Baltzegar mortgage was paid by the Boltin mortgage, which was given to Wifi liams.

Williams had taken the Boltin mortgage for the full amount of the purchase money that Boltin was to pay Baltzegar, and agreed to finance the matter and pay the Baltzegar mortgage. He paid the bank which held it, and had the bank assign the mortgage to him. He had agreed to pay the mortgage, which he did, but instead of having the mortgage satisfied he had the bank assign it to him. The mortgage was paid and became á dead paper when Rizer took the Baltzegar mortgage by assignment from Williams, long after it was due. He took no- better title to it than Williams had. He took it subject to all existing defenses. Code 1922, Vol. 1, § 355; Code 1922, Vol. 3, § 3709. Patterson v. Robb, 38 S. C., 138; 17 S. E., 463; 19 L. R. A., 831. British American Mort. Co. v. Smith, 45 S. C., 83; 22 S. E., 747. Willoughby v. Ray, 131 S. C., 317; 127 S. E., 441. Woodrow v. Frederick (S. C.), 131 S. E., 598.

We see no error at all in the decree of Judge Dennis as complained of. It is strictly in accordance with the law applicable to the facts as found by him, and we have decided in a number of cases that it is incumbent *183 upon the appellant to satisfy this Court that the finding of the Circuit Court is against the preponderance of the testimony. In this case the appellant has failed to do this.

All the exceptions are overruled, and the judgment is affirmed.

Mr. Chiee Justice Gary and Messrs. Justices Cothran, BeEasE and StabeER concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 S.E. 539, 135 S.C. 173, 1926 S.C. LEXIS 83, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ives-v-rutland-sc-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack