Sherwood v. McLaurin

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Sherwood v. McLaurin

80 S.E. 609, 96 S.C. 348, 1914 S.C. LEXIS 207

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJanuary 13, 1914

Docket8717

StatusPublished

This text of 80 S.E. 609 (Sherwood v. McLaurin) 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

Sherwood v. McLaurin, 80 S.E. 609, 96 S.C. 348, 1914 S.C. LEXIS 207 (S.C. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice; Watts.

This is an appeal from an order of his Honor, Judge Gage, who1 reversed the report of W. M. Stevenson, Esq., special referee, by which he struck out part of the answer of Julia Markey filed by her in a suit brought by the appellants as executors, etc., of James- S. GeGette, deceased, against her and others as devisees- and legatees under said will. The suit brought by the executors was to construe the will, sell land, to pay debts, etc. The answer of Julia Markey, among other things, set up a debt due her by the testator, James S. GeGette, deceased, and asked for judgment and payment of the same.

A motion was made before the special referee to' strike out all of that part of the answer of Julia Markey which seeks to' establish her claims against the estate on the ground that it was irrelevant. The special referee granted this-, and upon exceptions filed to -his report his Honor, Judge- Gage, sustained the exceptions and reversed the ruling of referee and held that the complaint in the case was in effect a bill to call in creditors, sell land, to' pay debts, and to- divide any balance, if any, and that Julia Markey was made a party thereto and it was not only her right but her duty “to declare her whole mind.” The plaintiffs appeal and challenge the correctness of this ruling and allege that he committed error of law in overruling the report of the referee. These exceptions are overruled.

1 *350 2 *349 An inspection of the complaint will show that his- Honor placed the proper construction on it. It was a bill in effect pure and simple to marshal the estate of the deceased testator alleging an insufficient amount of personal pro-perty to pay debts; that suit had been commenced by one creditor and asking that creditors- be called in to establish their claims and land be sold to aid personality *350 in paying the debts and a division, if any, of the balance. This is in substance the allegation of the complaint, and no doubt the learned and able lawyer who1 drafted it, Knox Livingstone, Esq., now deceased, intended it to be such, and we see no error in the order of his Honor in.holding and deciding as he did. But we desire to call attention that when his Honor, Judge Gage, reversed the ruling of the referee in striking out part of the answer, in restoring the allegations of the answer, that this order is not appealable under the cases of Harbert v. Ry. Co., 74 S. C. 116, 53 S. E. 1001, and Osteen v. R. R., 93 S. C. 62, 63, 76 S. E. 25.

Judgment affirmed.

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 an order of his Honor, Judge Gage, who1 reversed the report of W. M. Stevenson, Esq., special referee, by which he struck out part of the answer of Julia Markey filed by her in a suit brought by the appellants as executors, etc., of James- S. GeGette, deceased, against her and others as devisees- and legatees under said will. The suit brought by the executors was to construe the will, sell land, to pay debts, etc. The answer of Julia Markey, among other things, set up a debt due her by the testator, James S. GeGette, deceased, and asked for judgment and payment of the same.

A motion was made before the special referee to' strike out all of that part of the answer of Julia Markey which seeks to' establish her claims against the estate on the ground that it was irrelevant. The special referee granted this-, and upon exceptions filed to -his report his Honor, Judge- Gage, sustained the exceptions and reversed the ruling of referee and held that the complaint in the case was in effect a bill to call in creditors, sell land, to' pay debts, and to- divide any balance, if any, and that Julia Markey was made a party thereto and it was not only her right but her duty “to declare her whole mind.” The plaintiffs appeal and challenge the correctness of this ruling and allege that he committed error of law in overruling the report of the referee. These exceptions are overruled.

1 *350 2 *349 An inspection of the complaint will show that his- Honor placed the proper construction on it. It was a bill in effect pure and simple to marshal the estate of the deceased testator alleging an insufficient amount of personal pro-perty to pay debts; that suit had been commenced by one creditor and asking that creditors- be called in to establish their claims and land be sold to aid personality *350 in paying the debts and a division, if any, of the balance. This is in substance the allegation of the complaint, and no doubt the learned and able lawyer who1 drafted it, Knox Livingstone, Esq., now deceased, intended it to be such, and we see no error in the order of his Honor in.holding and deciding as he did. But we desire to call attention that when his Honor, Judge Gage, reversed the ruling of the referee in striking out part of the answer, in restoring the allegations of the answer, that this order is not appealable under the cases of Harbert v. Ry. Co., 74 S. C. 116, 53 S. E. 1001, and Osteen v. R. R., 93 S. C. 62, 63, 76 S. E. 25.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 S.E. 609, 96 S.C. 348, 1914 S.C. LEXIS 207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sherwood-v-mclaurin-sc-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack