Barrett & Co v. Still, (No. 9188.)

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtWATTS
Citation102 S.C. 19,86 S.E. 204
PartiesBARRETT & CO. v. STILL et al.
Docket Number(No. 9188.)
Decision Date10 September 1915

86 S.E. 204
102 S.C. 19

BARRETT & CO.
v.
STILL et al.

(No. 9188.)

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Sept. 10, 1915.


[86 S.E. 205]

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Barnwell County; Thos. S. Sease, Judge.

Action by Barrett & Co. against H. D. Still and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Judgment modified.

Bates & Simnis, of Barnwell, and Mayfield & Free, of Bamberg, for appellants.

W. H. Fleming and R. J. Southall, both of Augusta, Ga., and Mitchell & Smith, James Simons, and Nathans & Sinkler, all of Charleston, for respondent.

WATTS, J. H. D. Still, Sr., died April 19, 1913, intestate, leaving his widow, Mrs. Marian M. Still, and three sons, his heirs and distributees. H. D. Still, Jr., one of his sons, administered on his estate in Barnwell county. Mr. H. D. Still, Sr., at the time of his death was indebted to various parties. He had made a deed to his wife, Mrs. Marian Still, of his lands. This deed was made September 12, 1911, but was not recorded until June 17, 1912.

The present action was instituted by Barrett & Co., on behalf of itself and other creditors, against Mrs. Marian M. Still and the other heirs and the administrator of the intestate, and against the F. S. Royster Guano Company, Southern States Phosphate & Fertilizer Company, and Pope & Fleming, as defendants. C. F. Rizer, claiming to hold a mortgage of the lands in question made by Mrs. Marian M. Still, was made a party defendant. He answered. The object of the action was to set aside the above-mentioned deed as fraudulent against the creditors of H. D. Still, Sr. The defendants Southern States Thosphate & Fertilizer Company and Pope & Fleming answered, taking the same position as to this deed. Neither the plaintiff nor the above-named defendants contended that the deed was void as to their respective claims by reason of the failure to record within the required time. The F. S. Royster Guano Company answered. This creditor sets up the failure to record the said deed in time and that it had no notice of it. Answers were filed by the heirs and administrator of H. D. Still, Sr.; Mrs. Marian M. Still answering separately. An order was made enjoining the creditors of H. D. Still, Sr., deceased, from otherwise proceeding on their claims, and requiring them to be proved in this action. An order was subsequently made requiring J. Emile Harley, Jr., Esq., as special referee, to call in creditors to prove their demands by a certain day and referring it to him to take testimony. Under this order claims were filed by creditors, including Read Phosphate Company and F. W. Wagener & Co. These two creditors set up that the debts to them respectively owing by the intestate, H. D. Still, Sr., were contracted after the making of the deed of H. D. Still, Sr., to his wife and before its record, and that they had no notice thereof, and that with respect to their respective claims they are protected against this deed by the recording law. A claim was presented by Leesville Cotton Oil & Fertilizer Company.

The case was heard by his honor Judge Sease, who made his decree. An appeal was taken and exceptions, 24 in number, filed by Mrs. Marian M. Still. One joint exception was filed by the F. S. Royster Guano Company, the Read Phosphate Company, and F. W. Wagener & Co. Exceptions were riled by Leesville Cotton Seed Oil Mill Company. Exceptions were filed by C. F. Rizer. The result of these various exceptions is to raise the following questions:

I. Did the circuit judge err in decreeing the deed of H. D. Still, Sr., to Mrs. Marian M. Still void as against the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 practice notes
  • Gardner v. Kirven, No. 14486.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 18, 1937
    ...82 S.E. 638; Gray v. Collins, 139 Ga. 776, 78 S.E. 127, 128, 129; Younger v. Massey, 39 S.C. 115, 17 S.E. 711; Barrett & Co. v. Still, 102 S.C. 19, 29, 86 S.E. 204; Bank v. Dow-ling, 52 S.C. 345, 366, 29 S.E. 788; South Carolina Cotton Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v. English, 135 S.C. 19, 133 S.E.......
  • Matthews v. Montgomery, No. 15043.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • March 21, 1940
    ...King v. Clarke, 11 Hill Ch. 611; McAfee v. McAfee, 28 S.C. 188, 5 S.E. 480; DuRant v. DuRant, 36 S.C. 49, 14 S.E. 929; Barrett v. Still, 102 S.C. 19, 86 S.E. 204; Dennis v. McKnight, 161 S.C. 209, 159 S.E. 555. "The plaintiff's case is not based upon their contract, --it proceeds upon the f......
  • Farr-barnes Lumber Co v. Town Of St. George, (No. 11451.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • March 14, 1924
    ...E. 1005; Eaney v. Gregory, 101 S. C. 144, 86 S. E. 3; Iowa City State Bank v. Hoefer, 101 S. C. 207, 85 S. E. 406; Barrett & Co. v. Still, 102 S. C. 19, 86 S. E. 204; Bank v. Crawford, 103 S. C. 340, 88 S. E. 13; Bank v. Given, 103 S. C. 174, 87 S. E. 998; Harrison v. Crosby, 104 S. C. 350,......
  • Robbins v. Dinkins, No.15776.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • October 31, 1945
    ...82 S.E. 638; Gray v. Collins, 139 Ga. 776, 78 S.E. 127, 128, 129; Younger v. Massey, 39 S.C. 115, 17 S.E. 711; Barrett & Co. v. Still, 102 S.C. 19, 29, 86 S.E. 204; Bank v. Dowling, 52 S.C. 345, 366, 29 S.E. 788; South Carolina Cotton Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v. English, 135 S.C. 19, 133 S.E. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
13 cases
  • Gardner v. Kirven, No. 14486.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 18, 1937
    ...82 S.E. 638; Gray v. Collins, 139 Ga. 776, 78 S.E. 127, 128, 129; Younger v. Massey, 39 S.C. 115, 17 S.E. 711; Barrett & Co. v. Still, 102 S.C. 19, 29, 86 S.E. 204; Bank v. Dow-ling, 52 S.C. 345, 366, 29 S.E. 788; South Carolina Cotton Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v. English, 135 S.C. 19, 133 S.E.......
  • Matthews v. Montgomery, No. 15043.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • March 21, 1940
    ...King v. Clarke, 11 Hill Ch. 611; McAfee v. McAfee, 28 S.C. 188, 5 S.E. 480; DuRant v. DuRant, 36 S.C. 49, 14 S.E. 929; Barrett v. Still, 102 S.C. 19, 86 S.E. 204; Dennis v. McKnight, 161 S.C. 209, 159 S.E. 555. "The plaintiff's case is not based upon their contract, --it proceeds upon the f......
  • Farr-barnes Lumber Co v. Town Of St. George, (No. 11451.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • March 14, 1924
    ...E. 1005; Eaney v. Gregory, 101 S. C. 144, 86 S. E. 3; Iowa City State Bank v. Hoefer, 101 S. C. 207, 85 S. E. 406; Barrett & Co. v. Still, 102 S. C. 19, 86 S. E. 204; Bank v. Crawford, 103 S. C. 340, 88 S. E. 13; Bank v. Given, 103 S. C. 174, 87 S. E. 998; Harrison v. Crosby, 104 S. C. 350,......
  • Robbins v. Dinkins, No.15776.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • October 31, 1945
    ...82 S.E. 638; Gray v. Collins, 139 Ga. 776, 78 S.E. 127, 128, 129; Younger v. Massey, 39 S.C. 115, 17 S.E. 711; Barrett & Co. v. Still, 102 S.C. 19, 29, 86 S.E. 204; Bank v. Dowling, 52 S.C. 345, 366, 29 S.E. 788; South Carolina Cotton Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v. English, 135 S.C. 19, 133 S.E. ......
  • 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