5 S.E. 274 (S.C. 1888), Brown v. Prevost

Citation:5 S.E. 274, 28 S.C. 123
Opinion Judge:SIMPSON, C.J.
Party Name:BROWN et al. v. PREVOST et al.
Attorney:Broyles & Simpson and Keith & Verner, for appellants. Brown & Tribble and W. J. Stribling, for respondents.
Case Date:February 23, 1888
Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 274

5 S.E. 274 (S.C. 1888)

28 S.C. 123

BROWN et al.

v.

PREVOST et al.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

February 23, 1888

Appeal from common pleas circuit court of Oconee county; T. B. FRAZER, Judge.

This action was brought by J. Feaster Brown and others against Anna K. Prevost and husband to foreclose a mortgage. From the decree rendered in the case the defendants appeal.

Broyles & Simpson and Keith & Verner, for appellants.

Brown & Tribble and W. J. Stribling, for respondents.

SIMPSON, C.J.

It appears that the appellant Anna K. Prevost, in January, 1886, executed a mortgage covering a certain tract of land located in Oconee county, her separate estate, to secure a note of herself and husband, given to the respondents for $813.47; also another mortgage upon the same land on the 15th February, 1883, to the defendant E. F. Carter to secure a debt of $400; and still another on the 26th of January, 1886, over the same land, to secure a debt of $208.08, to W. F. Barr. At the time, and since said mortgages were executed, the said Anna K. was a married woman, the wife of appellant J. Willett Prevost. The plaintiffs, respondents, instituted the action

Page 275

below to foreclose their mortgage, and Carter and Barr were made parties defendants. Anna K. and her husband answered, denying the allegations in the complaint, except they admitted the execution of the mortgages, stating, as to the debt of the respondents, that only a portion thereof was for supplies to the separate estate of the said Anna K., a large portion being for family supplies, which the said Anna K. was under no obligation to furnish; and defendant J. Willett Prevost alleged that he had transferred an account on one Richardson to the respondents as collateral, for which he claimed a credit, or return thereof. As to the mortgage to E. F. Carter, this they alleged was to secure $400, advanced to the husband to be used in a mercantile partnership with one W. E. Andrews, no part of it being for the separate estate of the said Anna K., she having given the mortgage as surety of her husband. As to the Barr mortgage, for $208.08, they admitted this was to secure the amount mentioned, advanced for supplies for the separate estate of the said Anna K. Wherefore they asked judgment that the foreclosure of the Brown mortgage should only be for so much as upon production of their books should appear to be...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP