67 S.E. 295 (S.C. 1910), Cole v. Ward

Citation:67 S.E. 295, 85 S.C. 259
Opinion Judge:WOODS, J.
Party Name:COLE v. WARD et al.
Attorney:Geo. H. Edwards and E. O. Woods, for appellants. Robt. Macfarlan, for respondent.
Case Date:March 17, 1910
Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina

Page 295

67 S.E. 295 (S.C. 1910)

85 S.C. 259



WARD et al.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

March 17, 1910

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Darlington County; G. W. Gage, Judge.

Action by James A. Cole against L. M. Ward and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Geo. H. Edwards and E. O. Woods, for appellants. Robt. Macfarlan, for respondent.


The plaintiff, Cole, brought this action to foreclose a mortgage executed by L. M. Ward. John McSween, L. E. Carrigan,

Page 296

and C. B. Edwards were made parties defendant under the allegation that they claimed title to the land. The defendants McSween and Carrigan answered, setting up title by purchase at sheriff's sale under executions against J. J. Ward, who had conveyed the land to A. C. Spain, from whom the mortgagor had obtained title. These defendants further alleged that the defendant C. B. Edwards claimed title and possession under conveyances from J. J. Ward to A. C. Spain and through successive grantees from that source to himself. Against Edwards' claim of title, they alleged that the deed from Ward to Spain "was not a bona fide transaction and conveyed no title to said Spain, and said deed has never been recorded." Thus it appears that the claim of McSween and Carrigan was on two grounds: First, that the deed from the judgment debtor, Ward, to Spain, was not bona fide; and, second, that there were purchasers at sheriff's sale of Ward's interest without notice of his conveyance to Spain. The defendant Edwards set up these defenses: First, a general denial of the allegations of the answer of McSween and Carrigan; second, that the conveyance from Ward to Spain under which he claimed was bona fide; third, that he was a purchaser for value without notice; fourth, the statute of limitations and adverse possessions. The issue as to title between McSween and Carrigan and Edwards was tried and a verdict rendered and judgment entered in favor of Edwards. On appeal, the Supreme Court ordered a new trial. Thereafter the defendants [85 S.C. 261] McSween and Carrigan were allowed by order of Judge Gage to amend by striking out their answer the words italicized in the following clause of the fifth paragraph: "They admit the allegations contained in the sixth paragraph of the complaint, and further answering, allege that the defendant, C. B. Edwards, claims title and possession...

To continue reading