J.H. Wilkes & Co. v. Arthur

• Citation: 74 S.E. 361,91 S.C. 163
• Parties: J. H. WILKES & CO. et al. v. ARTHUR et al.
• Decision Date: 27 March 1912
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina

74 S.E. 361

91 S.C. 163

J. H. WILKES & CO. et al. v. ARTHUR et al.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

March 27, 1912

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Union County; R. C. Watts Judge.

"To be officially reported."

Action by J. H. Wilkes & Co. and others against B. F. Arthur and others. From a judgment confirming the master's report certain defendants appeal. Affirmed.

W. W Johnson, Mitchell & Smith, and J. P. K. Bryan, for appellants. J. K. Hamblin, H. K. Osborne, Stanyarne Wilson J. G. Hughes, J. F. Walker, Jr., and J. A. Sawyer, for respondents.

GARY C.J.

This is an action by J. H. Wilkes & Co., King Hardware Company, and Lady Schumpert as plaintiffs (of whom Lady Schumpert is the only party respondent) against B. F. Arthur and numerous other parties named as stockholders of the People's Bank, an insolvent corporation heretofore doing business at Union, S.C. The action was brought by the plaintiffs in behalf of themselves and all other depositors of the People's Bank who might join with them and contribute to the expenses of the suit to enforce the statutory liability of said stockholders. There was an order of reference to the master to take the testimony, and report upon all issues involved, from which order there was an appeal, but the appeal was dismissed. 85 S.C. 300, 67 S.E. 297. The master made his report, which was confirmed by the circuit court, except in certain particulars therein mentioned, whereupon several of the parties defendant, represented by different attorneys, appealed to this court.

We will consider first, the questions raised by these appellants represented by Mr. Bryan, who, in his argument, states that the main question in the case is whether the claims of any of the depositors have been legally proved under the order of reference.

The sixteenth exception assigns error on the part of his honor the circuit judge "in overruling and not sustaining exception 16 to the report of the master as follows "The master erred in finding as matter of fact that at a reference on the 27th of July, 1910, it was agreed by counsel that the claims of all the depositors who were present or represented at the reference, or had heretofore proven their claims, or filed same with the master, should be established by the books of said People's Bank, and the accounts of the receivers, provided the accounts of the respective depositors shall not exceed the receivers' accounts and the bank books."' The following statement appears in the testimony: "It is agreed that all further claims offered by Mr. Hamblin and his associates may be proven by filing a statement showing the names of the parties, and the amounts of the respective claims, the same, however, to be in accordance with the bank books, which are hereby offered in evidence for purposes of verification; and the said statement shall be sufficient proof of such claims when so filed. The same agreement is to apply to all...