Wallace v. Issaqueena Mill

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Wallace v. Issaqueena Mill

178 S.E. 543, 175 S.C. 89, 1935 S.C. LEXIS 80

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedFebruary 12, 1935

Docket14000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 178 S.E. 543 (Wallace v. Issaqueena Mill) 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

Wallace v. Issaqueena Mill, 178 S.E. 543, 175 S.C. 89, 1935 S.C. LEXIS 80 (S.C. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was rendered by

Mr. Justice StabeER.

As stated by counsel for the appellants, practically the only question involved in this appeal is whether Judge Greene committed error in ordering a sale of the stock of Courtenay Manufacturing Company and of the entire property of Issaqueena Mill, “in the absence of an audit of the affairs of these plants.”

While, ordinarily, the appellants, as stockholders, would be entitled to the audit requested by them, we do not think, from a careful and painstaking study of the evidence, stated in some detail in the Circuit order, that Judge Greene was in error in refusing the motion. The testimony discloses that an audit would be of no practical value to the appellants, or to any stockholder; for, as pointed out in the order of sale, the creditors are the virtual owners of the property. In other words, the valid claims of creditors are far in excess of the value of the plants. In these circumstances, it cannot soundly be held that the action of Judge Greene amounted to an abuse of discretion. .

The exceptions are overruled, and the judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Messrs. Justices Carter and Bonham and Messrs. Acting Associate Justices J. Henry Johnson and C. J. Ramage concur.

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

The opinion of the Court was rendered by

Mr. Justice StabeER.

As stated by counsel for the appellants, practically the only question involved in this appeal is whether Judge Greene committed error in ordering a sale of the stock of Courtenay Manufacturing Company and of the entire property of Issaqueena Mill, “in the absence of an audit of the affairs of these plants.”

While, ordinarily, the appellants, as stockholders, would be entitled to the audit requested by them, we do not think, from a careful and painstaking study of the evidence, stated in some detail in the Circuit order, that Judge Greene was in error in refusing the motion. The testimony discloses that an audit would be of no practical value to the appellants, or to any stockholder; for, as pointed out in the order of sale, the creditors are the virtual owners of the property. In other words, the valid claims of creditors are far in excess of the value of the plants. In these circumstances, it cannot soundly be held that the action of Judge Greene amounted to an abuse of discretion. .

The exceptions are overruled, and the judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Messrs. Justices Carter and Bonham and Messrs. Acting Associate Justices J. Henry Johnson and C. J. Ramage concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 S.E. 543, 175 S.C. 89, 1935 S.C. LEXIS 80, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wallace-v-issaqueena-mill-sc-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack