Adams v. Haselden
Decision Date | 24 June 1919 |
Docket Number | 10214. |
Parties | ADAMS et al. v. HASELDEN et al. |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Charleston County; T. J Mauldin, Judge.
Action by E. C. L. Adams and others against M. V. Haselden Elizabeth L. Horlbeck, W. C. Fripp, and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal . Affirmed.
Lyles & Lyles, of Columbia, for appellants.
Mitchell & Smith and James Simons, all of Charleston, and Benet, Shand & McGowan, of Columbia, for respondents.
The questions argued before this court in this case arise from an order sustaining a demurrer to the complaint. The complaint is a long one, but the essential allegations may be briefly stated:
John S Horlbeck, deceased, owned a certain plantation, on which there was a pecan grove, and gave to one W. C. Fripp, a contract of sale; that Fripp transferred his interest under that contract to the plaintiffs who organized a corporation known as the South Atlantic Pecan Company, to purchase and operate the pecan grove, and Mr. Horlbeck conveyed the land to the corporation for the sum of $250,000, payable in part in cash and in part on credit, secured by a bond of the corporation and a mortgage of the land conveyed. The bond was not paid, the mortgage foreclosed, and bid in by Mr. Horlbeck for the sum of $50,000, which the plaintiffs allege was the full value of the mortgaged premises. The plaintiffs allege that the corporation issued to them corporate stock for the money they had paid to Mr. Horlbeck; that the price was grossly excessive, and that the plaintiffs and other parties were induced to enter into the transaction by reason of false and fraudulent misrepresentations of the defendants Fripp and Haselden, who were in collusion with Mr. Horlbeck. The complaint alleges a loss of $82,380, paid, principal and interest, to Mr. Horlbeck, and $20,000 improvements on the place, or a total loss of $102,380. The complaint alleges:
Horlbeck and the defendants M. V. Haselden and W. C. Fripp as the proper methods for the development thereof; but again the crop for the year 1914 proved wholly disappointing, both in the size of the nuts and in the amount of the yield therefrom, and the same was true as to the crop of the year 1915, and during the winter of the year 1915-1916 these plaintiffs began to suspect that the failure of the orchard to bear a normal yield of nuts was due to something which these plaintiffs had not then discovered. They soon, however, discovered the fact that the orchard has for years been subject to the disease of scab, hereinbefore referred to, and now allege that the small yields of nuts from said trees was due to the presence of said disease, and to the inferior character of the trees constituting the orchards.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gary v. Matthews
... ... Surety Company of New York, primarily in favor of said ... American Bank & Trust Company, Adams v. Haselden, ... 112 S.C. 32, 99 S.E. 762; Fletcher, Cyc. Corporations, § ... 4051, p. 6852. It also alleges that the American Bank & Trust ... ...
-
McEachern v. Wilson
... ... Elizabeth Wilson, now deceased. A cause of action of this ... nature does not survive the death of the alleged tort ... feasor. Adams v. Haselden, 112 S.C. 32, 99 S.E ... 762; Cline v. Southern R. Co., 113 S.C. 440, 102 ... S.E. 641 ... "The ... exception ... ...