Adams v. Haselden, (No. 10214.)

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtFRAZER
Citation99 S.E. 762
Docket Number(No. 10214.)
Decision Date24 June 1919
PartiesADAMS et al. v. HASELDEN et al.

99 S.E. 762

ADAMS et al.
v.
HASELDEN et al.

(No. 10214.)

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

June 24, 1919.


[99 S.E. 762]

Gary, C. J., and Hydrick, J., dissenting.

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Charleston County; T. J. Mauldin, Judge.

Action by E. C. D. Adams and others against M. V. Haselden, Elizabeth L. Horlbeck, W. C. Fripp, and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Dyles & Lyles, of Columbia, for appellants.

Mitchell & Smith and James Simons, all of Charleston, and Benet, Shand & McGowan, of Columbia, for respondents.

FRAZER, J. The questions argued before this court in this case arise from all 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 laud 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:

"15. That the said South Atlantic Pecan Company expended large sums of money in the effort to fertilize the said pecan orchards and to cultivate the same in scientific and proper methods, so as to bring the same up to the productive capacity as it had been represented, as hereinbefore alleged, that such orchards should be fertilized and cultivated. The sums of money so expended by the said South Atlantic Pecan Company, over and above all returns received from the sale of the nuts or other income from said premises, exceeded the unexpended balance of the capital stock which had been subscribed to and paid into the said South Atlantic Pecan Company, and aggregated, as these plaintiffs are informed and believe, approximately $20,000, in addition to the sums raised and paid to the said John S. Horlbeck as before alleged.

"16. That the payments made by these plaintiffs and others prior to the organization of the said corporation were assumed by the said South Atlantic Pecan Company and credit was allowed to these plaintiffs and others on account of their subscriptions to the capital stock of said South Atlantic Pecan Company for such payments.

"17. That earnest efforts were made to finance the said South Atlantic Pecan Company, but it was soon discovered that, owing to the very disappointing quantity and quality of the crops of nuts obtained, the credit of the company was very limited, and these plaintiffs and others who had subscribed and' paid up the capital stock of said corporation, not being willing or able to put in additional funds, the said John S. Horlbeck commenced an action of foreclosure against the said South Atlantic Pecan Company, which resulted in a decree of foreclosure of the mortgage so executed as aforesaid and a sale of the premises covered by said mortgage, which occurred on the 16th day of April, 1916, and at such sale the said John S. Horlbeck bid in the said property at the price of $50,000, which these plaintiffs allege was a full market value thereof, his being the only bid therefor, and took from the master for Charleston county a deed for said premises at said price, and thereafter became the owner again of said premises in a much improved condition from what they had been at the time of his sale thereof to the said South Atlantic Pecan Company.

"18. That the said plaintiffs had discovered from the crop of pecans for the year 1913, which came upon the market about the end of November, that a large bulk of said nuts were of very inferior grade, and had also discovered that the yield of the trees was far below normal, but up to that time these plaintiffs...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Halsey v. Minnesota-South Carolina Land & Timber Co.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • 7 Enero 1932
    ...154 S. C. 201, 151 S. E. 472, 477; Cline v. So. Ry. Co., 113 S. C. 440, 445, 446, 102 S. E. 641; Adams v. Haselden, 112 S. C. 32, 38, 99 S. E. 762; Jenkins v. Bennett, 40 S. C. 393, 394, 18 S. E. 929; Huff v. Watkins, 20 S. C. 477; Chaplin v. Barrett, 12 Rich. (S. C.) 284, 75 Am. Dec. 731; ......
  • Robert F. Anderson, for Congaree Triton Acquisitions, LLC v. Cattano (In re, Congaree Triton Acquisitions, LLC), Case Number: 12-00456-jw
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of South Carolina
    • 1 Febrero 2016
    ...do not have standing to bring direct claims for wrongs that diminish the value of their shares in a corporation."); Adams v. Haselden, 99 S.E. 762 (S.C. 1919) (holding that investors' injuries were derivative when investors brought an action to recover the purchase price of a pecan grove fr......
  • Gary v. Matthews, (No. 12537.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 4 Diciembre 1928
    ...the American Surety Company of New York, primarily in favor of said American Bank & Trust Company, Adams v. Haselden, 112 S. O. 32, 99 S. E. 762; Fletcher, Cyc. Corporations, § 4051, p. 6852. It also alleges that the American Bank & Trust Company is insolvent and has been placed by this Cou......
  • Mceachern v. Wilson, (No. 12815.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 22 Enero 1930
    ...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 to the general rule does not obtain in this case because the action is ......
4 cases
  • Halsey v. Minnesota-South Carolina Land & Timber Co.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • 7 Enero 1932
    ...154 S. C. 201, 151 S. E. 472, 477; Cline v. So. Ry. Co., 113 S. C. 440, 445, 446, 102 S. E. 641; Adams v. Haselden, 112 S. C. 32, 38, 99 S. E. 762; Jenkins v. Bennett, 40 S. C. 393, 394, 18 S. E. 929; Huff v. Watkins, 20 S. C. 477; Chaplin v. Barrett, 12 Rich. (S. C.) 284, 75 Am. Dec. 731; ......
  • Robert F. Anderson, for Congaree Triton Acquisitions, LLC v. Cattano (In re, Congaree Triton Acquisitions, LLC), Case Number: 12-00456-jw
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of South Carolina
    • 1 Febrero 2016
    ...do not have standing to bring direct claims for wrongs that diminish the value of their shares in a corporation."); Adams v. Haselden, 99 S.E. 762 (S.C. 1919) (holding that investors' injuries were derivative when investors brought an action to recover the purchase price of a pecan grove fr......
  • Gary v. Matthews, (No. 12537.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 4 Diciembre 1928
    ...the American Surety Company of New York, primarily in favor of said American Bank & Trust Company, Adams v. Haselden, 112 S. O. 32, 99 S. E. 762; Fletcher, Cyc. Corporations, § 4051, p. 6852. It also alleges that the American Bank & Trust Company is insolvent and has been placed by this Cou......
  • Mceachern v. Wilson, (No. 12815.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 22 Enero 1930
    ...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 to the general rule does not obtain in this case because the action is ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT