Turner v. Moore

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Turner v. Moore

109 S.E. 133, 117 S.C. 536, 1921 S.C. LEXIS 166

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedNovember 4, 1921

Docket10745

StatusPublished

This text of 109 S.E. 133 (Turner v. Moore) 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

Turner v. Moore, 109 S.E. 133, 117 S.C. 536, 1921 S.C. LEXIS 166 (S.C. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Watts.

This was an action to set aside a conveyance for damages for alleged fraud and collusion. After issue joined the cause was finally referred to J. M. L. Kirkland, Esq., as special referee, to take testimony and report to the Court *537 his findings in the case. Upon the coming in of his report ‘exceptions were duly taken, and Judge Rice heard the cause ■ on exceptions to referee’s report, and overruled the exceptions, and sustained and confirmed the report of the referee., From the decree of Judge Rice appellants appeal, and by ten exceptions impute error.

This Court has decided in a number of cases—among others, Hickson Lumber Co. v. Stallings, 91 S. C., 473; 74 S. E., 1072, and Leland v. Morrison, 92 S. C., 501; 75 S. E., 889, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 349—that the appellants shall satisfy this Court that the findings of the Circuit Court are against the weight of the evidence. In the case at bar we have the concurring findings of both the special referee and the Circuit Judge, and the appellants have failed to convince this Court that their findings are against the weight of the evidence; and we see no error at all in the decree of his Honor.

All exceptions are overruled and 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 was an action to set aside a conveyance for damages for alleged fraud and collusion. After issue joined the cause was finally referred to J. M. L. Kirkland, Esq., as special referee, to take testimony and report to the Court *537 his findings in the case. Upon the coming in of his report ‘exceptions were duly taken, and Judge Rice heard the cause ■ on exceptions to referee’s report, and overruled the exceptions, and sustained and confirmed the report of the referee., From the decree of Judge Rice appellants appeal, and by ten exceptions impute error.

This Court has decided in a number of cases—among others, Hickson Lumber Co. v. Stallings, 91 S. C., 473; 74 S. E., 1072, and Leland v. Morrison, 92 S. C., 501; 75 S. E., 889, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 349—that the appellants shall satisfy this Court that the findings of the Circuit Court are against the weight of the evidence. In the case at bar we have the concurring findings of both the special referee and the Circuit Judge, and the appellants have failed to convince this Court that their findings are against the weight of the evidence; and we see no error at all in the decree of his Honor.

All exceptions are overruled and judgment affirmed..

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 S.E. 133, 117 S.C. 536, 1921 S.C. LEXIS 166, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turner-v-moore-sc-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack