Ag-Chem Equipment Co., Inc. v. Daggerhart, AG-CHEM

Citation281 S.C. 380,315 S.E.2d 379
Decision Date29 February 1984
Docket NumberNo. 0160,AG-CHEM,0160
CourtCourt of Appeals of South Carolina
PartiesEQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC., Respondent, v. Bobby DAGGERHART and Donnie Rish, Defendants, of which Bobby Daggerhart is Appellant. Appeal of Bobby DAGGERHART. . Heard

Jonathan R. Hendrix, of Walker & Hendrix, Lexington, for appellant.

John Earl Duncan, of Rogers, Duncan, Fullwood & Perrin, Lexington, for respondent.


The question in this case is whether in post-judgment supplementary proceedings pursuant to Section 15-39-430 et seq., Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1976, the trial court properly appointed a receiver for the property of the appellant, Bobby Daggerhart. We affirm.

On March 2, 1979, respondent, Ag-Chem Equipment Company, Incorporated (Ag-Chem), obtained a judgment against Daggerhart and one Donnie Rish in the amount $9,502.90. 1 On May 28, 1980, a circuit court judge issued a rule to show cause requiring Daggerhart to appear before a special referee in supplementary proceedings.

The special referee held a hearing wherein Daggerhart was examined about his assets. Thereafter, the special referee issued his report in which he found that Daggerhart owned real estate with equity of $27,250, after deduction of all mortgage lien indebtednesses. He also found that Daggerhart owned an interest in partnership property but did not value the partnership interest. The referee further found that the total judgment liens against the property of Daggerhart (including Ag-Chem's judgment) totaled only $13,847.96. He then concluded that Daggerhart was the owner of sufficient assets free and clear of all liens to satisfy Ag-Chem's and other prior judgments. The referee recommended that a receiver be appointed.

Daggerhart objected to the special referee's report and asserted by way of exceptions that the special referee erred in (1) finding that he was the owner of sufficient assets to satisfy Ag-Chem's judgment and (2) finding that a receiver should be appointed to take charge of his assets.

After a hearing on the exceptions, the circuit judge found that the exceptions were "general in tone" and had no merit to them. He then dismissed the exceptions and appointed a receiver for Daggerhart's property.

Daggerhart has appealed the circuit court's order upon the following exceptions:

1. Did not the Circuit Court err in overruling Appellant's Exceptions to Special Referee's Report one (1) and two (2), the error being that there was insufficient evidence in the record of this case to uphold the Special Referee's recommendation?

2. Did not the lower court err in overruling the Appellant's Exceptions one (1) and two (2) to the Special Referee's report, the error being that the recommendations of the Special Referee were contrary to the law of the State of South Carolina?

The exceptions fail to state any concise proposition of law or fact to be reviewed by this Court as is required by Supreme Court Rule 4, Section 6. Exception Number One would require this Court to review all the testimony and evidence presented to the special referee. Our Supreme Court has said that such an exception is defective and need not be considered. Graham v. Kerns, 278 S.C. 197, 294 S.E.2d 38 (1982); Williams v. Regula, 266 S.C. 228, 222 S.E.2d 7 (1976); Solley v. Weaver, 247 S.C. 129, 146 S.E.2d 164 (1966). Exception Number Two violates Supreme Court Rule 4, Section 6, because it contains no assignment of error, and does not state to what proposition of law the special referee's report is contrary.

Nevertheless, because an issue of jurisdiction was tangentially raised, we have considered the reasons advanced by Daggerhart (during oral argument before this court and in his brief) for reversing the trial court's order and find his reasons unconvincing.

Daggerhart first argues that the evidence does not support the trial court's finding that a receiver should be appointed. We disagree. Supplementary proceedings are equitable in nature. Ex Parte Roddey, 171 S.C. 489, 172 S.E. 866 (1934); The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Marlboro Cotton Mills, 278 F. 816 (1922), modified, 282 F. 811, cert. denied, 260 U.S. 749, 43 S.Ct. 248, 67 L.Ed. 494 (1923). The appointment of a receiver in supplementary proceedings, unlike a pre-judgment receivership, is not a drastic remedy, Fagan v. Timmons, 217 S.C. 432, 60 S.E.2d 863 (1950), and is commonly made almost as a matter of course where it appears that the judgment debtor has property which ought to be applied to the satisfaction of the judgment. Burdett v. McAllister, 42 S.C. 352, 20 S.E. 86 (1894); 30 Am.Jur.2d Executions Section 851 (1967). We do not think that the trial judge abused his discretion by appointing a receiver under the facts of this case. Indeed, Daggerhart has not pointed out to us how the trial judge abused his discretion or any inequity whatsoever that would be occasioned by allowing the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Bankers Trust of South Carolina v. South Carolina Nat. Bank of Charleston
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • October 24, 1984
    ...apparent to the parties during the course of the appeal. Goodwin v. Dawkins, S.C., 317 S.E.2d 449 (1984); Ag-Chem Equipment Co. v. Daggerhart, 315 S.E.2d 379 (S.C.App.1984); Ramage v. Ramage, 322 S.E.2d 22 The position Bankers Trust takes in its brief is that SCN's right to repayment from B......
  • Estate of Stanley v. Sandiford
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • September 25, 1985
    ...order requiring the funds in the account to be included as an asset of the decedent's estate. As in Ag-Chem Equipment Co. v. Daggerhart, 281 S.C. 380, 383, 315 S.E.2d 379, 381 (Ct.App.1984) the exceptions in this case "fail to state any concise proposition of law or fact ... as is required ......
  • Mallek v. Tangeman, Opinion No. 2008-UP-317 (S.C. App. 6/25/2008)
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • June 25, 2008
    ...This appeal follows. STANDARD OF REVIEW Supplementary proceedings are equitable in nature. Ag-Chem Equip. Co., Inc. v. Daggerhart, 281 S.C. 380, 383, 315 S.E.2d 379, 381 (Ct. App. 1984). In an equitable matter referred to a master-in-equity for final judgment, we may find facts in accordanc......
  • First Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. Taylor
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • July 8, 2020
    ...aff'd , 324 S.C. 198, 478 S.E.2d 63 (1996). "Supplementary proceedings are equitable in nature." Ag-Chem Equip. Co. v. Daggerhart , 281 S.C. 380, 383, 315 S.E.2d 379, 381 (Ct. App. 1984). "Proceedings supplementary to execution ... provid[e] for examination of the judgment debtor for the pu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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