Miles v. Felkel

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Miles v. Felkel

137 S.E. 329, 139 S.C. 95, 1926 S.C. LEXIS 235

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedDecember 20, 1926

Docket12127

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 137 S.E. 329 (Miles v. Felkel) 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

Miles v. Felkel, 137 S.E. 329, 139 S.C. 95, 1926 S.C. LEXIS 235 (S.C. 1926).

Pincite

Opinions

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Blease.

Plaintiff brought action for foreclosure of a mortgage of real estate. In his answer, the defendant alleged certain payments on the mortgage debt to one Kroeg, agent of plaintiff. These payments were denied by plaintiff; she contending that Kroeg was not her agent. By consent of the parties, the cause was referred to P. K. Myers, Esq., one of the masters in equity for Charleston county. The master found the facts to be as contended by the defendant. The plaintiff excepted, and the masters’ report was confirmed by the Circuit Judge, Hon. R. W. Memminger, now deceased.

Since the defendant has in his favor concurrent findings-as to the facts by both the master and circuit Judge, the-burden is upon the plaintiff, as appellant, to satisfy the-Court that there was error as to these findings. This the appellant has failed to do.

The legal issues involved in the cause are identical with, those already passed upon by the Court, in Cogswell v. Cannady, 135 S. C., 365; 133 S. E., 834.

It is the judgment of this Court that the exceptions be overruled, and that the decree of Judge Memminger be affirmed.

Messrs. Justices Watts and Stabrer, and Mr. Acting-Associate Justice Ramage, concur. Mr. Justice Cothran dissents.

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 Blease.

Plaintiff brought action for foreclosure of a mortgage of real estate. In his answer, the defendant alleged certain payments on the mortgage debt to one Kroeg, agent of plaintiff. These payments were denied by plaintiff; she contending that Kroeg was not her agent. By consent of the parties, the cause was referred to P. K. Myers, Esq., one of the masters in equity for Charleston county. The master found the facts to be as contended by the defendant. The plaintiff excepted, and the masters’ report was confirmed by the Circuit Judge, Hon. R. W. Memminger, now deceased.

Since the defendant has in his favor concurrent findings-as to the facts by both the master and circuit Judge, the-burden is upon the plaintiff, as appellant, to satisfy the-Court that there was error as to these findings. This the appellant has failed to do.

The legal issues involved in the cause are identical with, those already passed upon by the Court, in Cogswell v. Cannady, 135 S. C., 365; 133 S. E., 834.

It is the judgment of this Court that the exceptions be overruled, and that the decree of Judge Memminger be affirmed.

Messrs. Justices Watts and Stabrer, and Mr. Acting-Associate Justice Ramage, concur. Mr. Justice Cothran dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 S.E. 329, 139 S.C. 95, 1926 S.C. LEXIS 235, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miles-v-felkel-sc-1926.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack