Brown v. Prevost

• Decision Date: 28 February 1888
• Citation: 5 S.E. 274,28 S.C. 123
• Parties: Brown et al. v. Prevost et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

5 S.E. 274

(28 S.C. 123)

Brown et al.

v.Prevost et al.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

February 28, 1888.

Husband and Wife—Separate Estate—Liability for Husband's Debts.

A mortgage given by a wife upon her separate estate can only be upheld so far as it was given to secure debts contracted for the benefit of the estate, and where a portion of the debt purporting to be secured by the mortgage was for supplies furnished the husband, such amount must be deducted from the mortgage in computing on foreclosure the sum due.

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 2Gth 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 ac-tion 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...