Thomason v. Thomason

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Thomason v. Thomason

52 S.E. 870, 73 S.C. 129, 1905 S.C. LEXIS 176

DecidedDecember 15, 1905

StatusPublished

This text of 52 S.E. 870 (Thomason v. Thomason) 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

Thomason v. Thomason, 52 S.E. 870, 73 S.C. 129, 1905 S.C. LEXIS 176 (S.C. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was, delivered by

Mr. ChiEE Justice Pope.

An order was made on the ex parte application of the plaintiff whereby his Honor, Judge D. A. Townsend, enjoined the defendant, Claude Thomason, from receiving the sum of $4,209 until the further order of the Court. This sum was the proceeds of defendant’s judgment against the Southern Railway Company on account of injury received by him1 from said railway. The ground of the plaintiff’s, application for the injunction prayed for was the claim of plaintiff for alimony after charging her husband with desertion, etc.

Subsequently, after due notice, the defendant moved for a dissolution of the injunction already granted. Upon due consideration, his Honor, Judge Townsend, ordered a modification' of his injunction by allowing the defendant to receive the sum of about $2,181, but restraining the defendant, who had suggested his willingness that so- much of his money so received from the Southern Railway Company as was necessary to pay for the tract of land, containing 138 2-3 acres, near Crawley station, in said county of Spartanburg, in this State, should be held by the clerk of court and so invested, from transferring said tract of land until the further order of this Court. From' this modification of said original order of injunction of Judge Townsend, the plaintiff has appealed to this Court.

After careful consideration, the Court is of the opinion that the order of Judge Townsend should be affirmed, as it seems to fully protect whatever right the plaintiff may establish under the allegations of her complaint. Inasmuch as the cause is yet to be heard upon its merits, we do> not deem it necessary or proper to- discuss the testimony submitted on the hearing before Judge Townsend.

*131 The order of Judge Townsend restrains the defendant from transferring the said tract of land until the further order of the Court. We construe this as intending, also, that the defendant shall not mortgage or encumber the same until the further order of the Court.

It is the judgment of this Court, that the order appealed from be and the same is 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. ChiEE Justice Pope.

An order was made on the ex parte application of the plaintiff whereby his Honor, Judge D. A. Townsend, enjoined the defendant, Claude Thomason, from receiving the sum of $4,209 until the further order of the Court. This sum was the proceeds of defendant’s judgment against the Southern Railway Company on account of injury received by him1 from said railway. The ground of the plaintiff’s, application for the injunction prayed for was the claim of plaintiff for alimony after charging her husband with desertion, etc.

Subsequently, after due notice, the defendant moved for a dissolution of the injunction already granted. Upon due consideration, his Honor, Judge Townsend, ordered a modification' of his injunction by allowing the defendant to receive the sum of about $2,181, but restraining the defendant, who had suggested his willingness that so- much of his money so received from the Southern Railway Company as was necessary to pay for the tract of land, containing 138 2-3 acres, near Crawley station, in said county of Spartanburg, in this State, should be held by the clerk of court and so invested, from transferring said tract of land until the further order of this Court. From' this modification of said original order of injunction of Judge Townsend, the plaintiff has appealed to this Court.

After careful consideration, the Court is of the opinion that the order of Judge Townsend should be affirmed, as it seems to fully protect whatever right the plaintiff may establish under the allegations of her complaint. Inasmuch as the cause is yet to be heard upon its merits, we do> not deem it necessary or proper to- discuss the testimony submitted on the hearing before Judge Townsend.

*131 The order of Judge Townsend restrains the defendant from transferring the said tract of land until the further order of the Court. We construe this as intending, also, that the defendant shall not mortgage or encumber the same until the further order of the Court.

It is the judgment of this Court, that the order appealed from be and the same is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 S.E. 870, 73 S.C. 129, 1905 S.C. LEXIS 176, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomason-v-thomason-sc-1905.