Townsend v. Rogers

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Townsend v. Rogers

DecidedMarch 12, 2008

Docket2008-UP-171

StatusUnpublished

This text of Townsend v. Rogers (Townsend v. Rogers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Townsend v. Rogers, (S.C. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Michelle Stephens Stokes Townsend f/k/a Michelle Stephens Stokes, Appellant,

v.

Charles Jack Rogers and Mary R. Guy, Respondents.

Appeal From Greenville County
G. Thomas Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-171
Submitted March 3, 2008 Filed March 12, 2008

AFFIRMED

Adam Fisher, Jr., of Greenville, for Appellant

E. Zachary Horton, of Greenville, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM: Michelle Stephens Stokes Townsend appeals the circuit courts referral of this case to the master-in-equity. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220, SCACR, and the following authorities: Marion Cotton Oil Co. v. Townsend, 222 S.C. 32, 36, 71 S.E.2d 500, 501 (1952) (stating there is a distinction between a suit on an account and one for accounting, for while the latter is strictly an equitable cause, it is not true of the former): Peets v. Wright, 117 S.C. 409, 109 S.E. 649, 653 (1921) (Accounting for waste, for betterments, and for rents among co-tenants is now recognized as an incident to the right of partition, and the universal practice for the Court of equity is to adjust all these matters in the suit for partition.); Laughin v. O Braitis, 360 S.C. 520, 524, 602 S.E.2d 108, 110 (Ct. App. 2004) (stating a partition action, as well as an action for accounting, is an action in equity); Ackerman v. Heard, 287 S.C. 626, 629, 340 S.E.2d 560, 562 (Ct. App. 1986) (stating compensation to a co-tenant is allowed not as a matter of legal right but purely from the desire of a court of equity to do justice and to prevent the one tenant from becoming enriched at the expense of another).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, KITTREDGE, and WILLIAMS, JJ. concur.

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.

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

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Michelle Stephens Stokes Townsend f/k/a Michelle Stephens Stokes, Appellant,

v.

Charles Jack Rogers and Mary R. Guy, Respondents.

Appeal From Greenville County
G. Thomas Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-171
Submitted March 3, 2008 Filed March 12, 2008

AFFIRMED

Adam Fisher, Jr., of Greenville, for Appellant

E. Zachary Horton, of Greenville, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM: Michelle Stephens Stokes Townsend appeals the circuit courts referral of this case to the master-in-equity. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220, SCACR, and the following authorities: Marion Cotton Oil Co. v. Townsend, 222 S.C. 32, 36, 71 S.E.2d 500, 501 (1952) (stating there is a distinction between a suit on an account and one for accounting, for while the latter is strictly an equitable cause, it is not true of the former): Peets v. Wright, 117 S.C. 409, 109 S.E. 649, 653 (1921) (Accounting for waste, for betterments, and for rents among co-tenants is now recognized as an incident to the right of partition, and the universal practice for the Court of equity is to adjust all these matters in the suit for partition.); Laughin v. O Braitis, 360 S.C. 520, 524, 602 S.E.2d 108, 110 (Ct. App. 2004) (stating a partition action, as well as an action for accounting, is an action in equity); Ackerman v. Heard, 287 S.C. 626, 629, 340 S.E.2d 560, 562 (Ct. App. 1986) (stating compensation to a co-tenant is allowed not as a matter of legal right but purely from the desire of a court of equity to do justice and to prevent the one tenant from becoming enriched at the expense of another).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, KITTREDGE, and WILLIAMS, JJ. concur.

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Townsend v. Rogers, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/townsend-v-rogers-scctapp-2008.

Opinion

E. Zachary Horton, of Greenville, for Respondents.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack