38 S.E. 122 (S.C. 1901), Elrod v. Cochran

Citation38 S.E. 122, 59 S.C. 467
Opinion JudgeGARY, A. J.
Party NameELROD v. COCHRAN et al.
AttorneyBonham & Watkins and Quattlebaum & Cochran, for appellant. E. M. Rucker, Jr., and Tribble & Prince, for respondents.
Case DateMarch 13, 1901
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

Page 122

38 S.E. 122 (S.C. 1901)

59 S.C. 467

ELROD

v.

COCHRAN et al.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

March 13, 1901

Appeal from common pleas circuit court of Anderson county; O. W. Buchanan, Judge.

Suit by Mattie Elrod against Sue Cochran and another. From a decree in favor of defendants, plaintiff appeals.[59 S.C. 468] Affirmed.

Page 123

Bonham & Watkins and Quattlebaum & Cochran, for appellant.

E. M. Rucker, Jr., and Tribble & Prince, for respondents.

GARY, A. J.

This action was brought to recover possession of a lot or parcel of land in the city of Anderson. Sue Cochran answered the complaint, alleging that plaintiff is seised of said property for the use and benefit of said defendant. She further claims that she purchased the lot [59 S.C. 469] from M. Kennedy, paid the purchase money thereof, and permitted the title to be executed to plaintiff, who is her daughter, with the understanding that the plaintiff was to hold the title for her benefit; that, although the deed was taken in the name of the plaintiff, a trust resulted in favor of the defendant Sue Cochran. Isham Cochran also answered, alleging substantially the same defense as was made by Sue Cochran. The issues of law and fact were referred to the probate judge as special referee, whose findings of fact were as follows: "First, I find as matters of fact that Sue Cochran, one of the defendants herein, on or about March 11, 1895, entered into a contract with M. Kennedy for the purchase of a house and lot in the city of Anderson, S. C., for the sum of five hundred dollars. Second. I find that the purchase price for said premises has been paid in full, and that said Sue Cochran made all the payments, with the exception of one or two, made by her daughter, Mattie Elrod, the plaintiff herein. Third. I find that all of the receipts for said payment made on said premises by Sue Cochran and her daughter, Mattie Elrod, were issued in the name of Sue Cochran. Fourth. I find that on or about December 11, 1897, M. Kennedy, under the directions of Sue Cochran, executed and delivered a deed to said premises to the plaintiff Mattie Cochran, now Mattie Elrod, and a daughter of the said Sue Cochran. Fifth. That on said same date Mrs. J. G. Kennedy, the wife of said M. Kennedy, was called on to renounce her dower in said premises, and Mrs. J. G. Kennedy, seeing the deed was drawn in the name of Mattie Cochran...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • 87 So. 449 (Miss. 1921), 21357, Tallahatchie Lumber Co. v. Cecil Lumber Co.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • March 21, 1921
    ...v. Gilreath, 189 Ala. 452, 66 So. 635; Carden v. McConnell, [124 Miss. 909] 116 N.C. 875, 21 S.E. 923; Elrod v. Cochran, 59 S.C. 467, 38 S.E. 122. There is no conflict in the evidence, and it follows from these views that appellant as plaintiff in the action was entitled to the peremptory c......
  • 58 S.E. 927 (S.C. 1907), Charles v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • August 31, 1907
    ...the contract in question involved merely a collateral matter, as to which parol testimony was admissible. Elrod v. Cochran, 59 S.C. 470, 38 S.E. 122. The ninth exception assigns error in not reversing the judgment of the magistrate for the statutory penalty, after having held that the claim......
  • 43 S.E.2d 600 (S.C. 1947), 15981, Caulk v. Caulk
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • August 9, 1947
    ...purchase money intended a benefit to himself, and accordingly a resulting trust is raised in his behalf. Elrod v. Cochran, 59 S.C. 467, 38 S.E. 122; Dumas v. Carroll et al., 112 S.C. 284, 99 S.E. 801. The presumption, however, may not be in accord with the truth. It may be rebutted and the ......
  • 97 S.E. 843 (S.C. 1919), 10113, Nauful v. National Loan & Exchange Bank of Columbia
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • January 11, 1919
    ...324, 23 Am. Dec. 140; Sims v. Jones, 43 S.C. 91, 20 S.E. 905; Hampton v. Ray, 52 S.C. 74, 29 S.E. 537; Elrod v. Cochran, 59 S.C. 467, 38 S.E. 122; State v. Waldrop, 73 S.C. 60, 52 S.E. 793. The next question to be determined is whether there was error on the part of his honor, the circuit j......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • 87 So. 449 (Miss. 1921), 21357, Tallahatchie Lumber Co. v. Cecil Lumber Co.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • March 21, 1921
    ...v. Gilreath, 189 Ala. 452, 66 So. 635; Carden v. McConnell, [124 Miss. 909] 116 N.C. 875, 21 S.E. 923; Elrod v. Cochran, 59 S.C. 467, 38 S.E. 122. There is no conflict in the evidence, and it follows from these views that appellant as plaintiff in the action was entitled to the peremptory c......
  • 58 S.E. 927 (S.C. 1907), Charles v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • August 31, 1907
    ...the contract in question involved merely a collateral matter, as to which parol testimony was admissible. Elrod v. Cochran, 59 S.C. 470, 38 S.E. 122. The ninth exception assigns error in not reversing the judgment of the magistrate for the statutory penalty, after having held that the claim......
  • 43 S.E.2d 600 (S.C. 1947), 15981, Caulk v. Caulk
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • August 9, 1947
    ...purchase money intended a benefit to himself, and accordingly a resulting trust is raised in his behalf. Elrod v. Cochran, 59 S.C. 467, 38 S.E. 122; Dumas v. Carroll et al., 112 S.C. 284, 99 S.E. 801. The presumption, however, may not be in accord with the truth. It may be rebutted and the ......
  • 97 S.E. 843 (S.C. 1919), 10113, Nauful v. National Loan & Exchange Bank of Columbia
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • January 11, 1919
    ...324, 23 Am. Dec. 140; Sims v. Jones, 43 S.C. 91, 20 S.E. 905; Hampton v. Ray, 52 S.C. 74, 29 S.E. 537; Elrod v. Cochran, 59 S.C. 467, 38 S.E. 122; State v. Waldrop, 73 S.C. 60, 52 S.E. 793. The next question to be determined is whether there was error on the part of his honor, the circuit j......
  • Request a trial to view additional results