J. H. Wilkes & Co. v. Arthur

67 S.E. 297, 85 S.C. 299, 1910 S.C. LEXIS 243
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedMarch 17, 1910
Docket7507
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 67 S.E. 297 (J. H. Wilkes & Co. v. Arthur) 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
J. H. Wilkes & Co. v. Arthur, 67 S.E. 297, 85 S.C. 299, 1910 S.C. LEXIS 243 (S.C. 1910).

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Chief Justice Jones.

This is an action by creditors to enforce alleged liability of the stockholders of the People’s Bank of Union.

'Certain of the defendants, the Exchange Bank and Trust Company, W. R. Walker and others, appeal from an order of Judge Sease made upon notice at chambers and out of term time, on August 9, 1909, referring the above entitled cause to the master to' take the testimony and report his conclusions of law and fact thereon.

The question presented is whether a Judge at chambers has authority, without consent of all parties, to order issues of law and fact to the master in a case of this kind. It is conceded that he had authority to order a reference to take the testimony.

Such an order may be at chambers. Green v. McCarter, 64 S. C., 292.

The “case” is very meagre in stating the terms of the complaint, but ordinarily such an action is in equity, involving an ascertainment of the assets of the bank and an application of them to the debts, and the ascertainment of the credits to which the stockholders are entitled on their liability. Parker v. Bank, 53 S. C., 588, 31 S. E., 673; Mann v. Boykin, 79 S. C., 1, 60 S. E., 17; Buist v. Williams, 81 S. C., 495, 62 S. E., 859.

Under section 293.of the Civil Code compulsory reference may be ordered when an examination of a long account may be required or where the taking of an account shall be necessary for the information of the Court. We cannot say that the case does not fall within this section.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

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

Related

Fant, Examiner v. Easley Loan Trust Co.
169 S.E. 659 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1933)
Bain v. Rogers
155 S.E. 619 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1930)
Farmers & Merchants National Bank v. Foster
129 S.E. 629 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1925)
J. H. Wilkes & Co. v. Arthur
74 S.E. 361 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1912)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
67 S.E. 297, 85 S.C. 299, 1910 S.C. LEXIS 243, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/j-h-wilkes-co-v-arthur-sc-1910.