Sovereign Camp of the Woodmen of the World v. Means

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Sovereign Camp of the Woodmen of the World v. Means

69 S.E. 85, 87 S.C. 127, 1910 S.C. LEXIS 110

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedOctober 14, 1910

Docket7685

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 69 S.E. 85 (Sovereign Camp of the Woodmen of the World v. Means) 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

Sovereign Camp of the Woodmen of the World v. Means, 69 S.E. 85, 87 S.C. 127, 1910 S.C. LEXIS 110 (S.C. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Woods.

The facts appearing from the evidence as stated in the report of the referee and the decree of the Circuit Judge show beyond all doubt that the issues raised by the pleadings in this case'were adjudicated against the plaintiff in another action entitled Mollie Fincher Means against Sovereign Camp of the Woodmen of the World. We can add nothing to the reasoning of the Circuit decree showing that there is no escape for the plaintiff from the plea of res judicata.

This result is peculiarly regrettable in one particular. The Sovereign Camp of the Woodmen of the World, supposing Charles A. Fincher to be the real beneficiary of the certificate sued on, paid to him the amount which fell due on the death of George E. Fincher. Mollie Fincher Means'admits that she received from Charles A. .Fincher, of the identical money so paid to him, two hundred dollars just before she attained her majority, which she spent for clothing necessary for her marriage. Afterwards in the suit broug'ht by her she was adjudged to be the beneficiary of the certificate and entitled to recover $1,000, — the full amount of the certificate. Therefore, when Mollie Fincher Means collects the sum of one thousand dollars adjudged to be due her, she will have received two hundred dollars of the amount twice. It will be a 'hardship on the Sovereign Camp of the Woodmen of the World to have to pay again to her this sum of two hundred dollars, and it will be a dishonest act on her part to receive it twice; but however strong -the evidence now offered on this point may be, the adjudication in the former case prevents this Court, as it did the Circuit Court, from granting any relief.

The judgment of this Court is that the judgment of the Circuit Court be 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 Woods.

The facts appearing from the evidence as stated in the report of the referee and the decree of the Circuit Judge show beyond all doubt that the issues raised by the pleadings in this case'were adjudicated against the plaintiff in another action entitled Mollie Fincher Means against Sovereign Camp of the Woodmen of the World. We can add nothing to the reasoning of the Circuit decree showing that there is no escape for the plaintiff from the plea of res judicata.

This result is peculiarly regrettable in one particular. The Sovereign Camp of the Woodmen of the World, supposing Charles A. Fincher to be the real beneficiary of the certificate sued on, paid to him the amount which fell due on the death of George E. Fincher. Mollie Fincher Means'admits that she received from Charles A. .Fincher, of the identical money so paid to him, two hundred dollars just before she attained her majority, which she spent for clothing necessary for her marriage. Afterwards in the suit broug'ht by her she was adjudged to be the beneficiary of the certificate and entitled to recover $1,000, — the full amount of the certificate. Therefore, when Mollie Fincher Means collects the sum of one thousand dollars adjudged to be due her, she will have received two hundred dollars of the amount twice. It will be a 'hardship on the Sovereign Camp of the Woodmen of the World to have to pay again to her this sum of two hundred dollars, and it will be a dishonest act on her part to receive it twice; but however strong -the evidence now offered on this point may be, the adjudication in the former case prevents this Court, as it did the Circuit Court, from granting any relief.

The judgment of this Court is that the judgment of the Circuit Court be affirmed. •'" '

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 S.E. 85, 87 S.C. 127, 1910 S.C. LEXIS 110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sovereign-camp-of-the-woodmen-of-the-world-v-means-sc-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack