Bradley v. Aimar, (No. 12217.)
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | WATTS |
| Citation | 138 S.E. 401 |
| Decision Date | 04 June 1927 |
| Docket Number | (No. 12217.) |
| Parties | BRADLEY, State Bank Examiner. v. AIMAR et al. |
138 S.E. 401
BRADLEY, State Bank Examiner.
v.
AIMAR et al.
(No. 12217.)
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
June 4, 1927.
[138 S.E. 402]
court's discretion, and denial thereof was not abuse of discretion.
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Georgetown County; S. W. G. Shipp, Judge.
Action by W. W. Bradley, State Bank Examiner, as receiver of Farmers' & Merchants' Bank of Georgetown, against Mary I. Aimar, E. L. Bost, and others. From the judgment, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
The following are plaintiffs exceptions:
(1) Because, it is respectfully submitted, his honor erred in ruling and holding that this action could not be maintained by the appellant, the error being that the appellant was and is the legally constituted and appointed receiver of Farmers' & Merchants' Bank, and, as such receiver, is the representative of all creditors of said bank, of which creditors the depositors, for whose benefit the action was brought, are a class, and his honor should have so held.
(2) Because, it is respectfully submitted, his honor erred in ruling and holding that this action could not be maintained by the plaintiff, the error being that in this action the plaintiff was and is not acting in his capacity of state bank examiner of South Carolina, and hence exercising supervisory control of Farmers' & Merchants' Bank, but appellant is acting as the legal receiver of said bank, and, as such receiver, was and is the representative of the depositors of said bank, and this action was brought by him as such representative for the benefit of the depositors, creditors of said bank, and his honor should have so held.
(3) Beeause, it is respectfully submitted, his honor erred in refusing the appellant's alternative motion to allow the intervention and substitution of a depositor of Farmers' & Merchants' Bank as plaintiff in the action for the benefit of all depositors of said bank, the error being that such amendment could not prejudice the rights of any defendants in the action, and his honor should have so held.
(4) Because, it is respectfully submitted, his honor erred in refusing to allow the alternative motion of the appellant for leave to amend the complaint by substituting the name of a depositor of Farmers' & Merchants' Bank as plaintiff in the action for the benefit of all depositors of said bank, the error being that such amendment was proper in view of the matter set up in the answers of the respondents, and the refusal to allow such amendment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Branchville Motor Co v. Adden, No. 12979.
...Johnson v. Adams, 138 S. C. 409, 136 S. E. 885, 887; Ford v. Sauls, 138 S. C. 426, 136 S. E. 888; Bradley v. Aimar, 140 S. C. 14, 138 S. E. 401; Ex parte Fant, 147 S. C. 167, 145 S. E. 34; State v. Bank of Clio, 129 S. C. 109, 123 S. E. 773; Gary v. Matthews, 148 S. C. 125, 145 S. E. 702. T......
-
Gary v. Matthews, (No. 12537.)
...liability. Johnson v. Adams, 138 S. C. 409, 136 S. E. 8S5; Ford v. Sauls, 138 S. O. 426, 136 S. E. 888; Bradley v. Aimar, 140 S. C. 14, 138 S. E. 401. Why such an action need not be brought in the right of the corporation is thus explained in Ford v. Sauls, supra: "The right of action ......
-
Branchville Motor Co v. Adden, No. 12979.
...Johnson v. Adams, 138 S. C. 409, 136 S. E. 885, 887; Ford v. Sauls, 138 S. C. 426, 136 S. E. 888; Bradley v. Aimar, 140 S. C. 14, 138 S. E. 401; Ex parte Fant, 147 S. C. 167, 145 S. E. 34; State v. Bank of Clio, 129 S. C. 109, 123 S. E. 773; Gary v. Matthews, 148 S. C. 125, 145 S. E. 702. T......
-
Gary v. Matthews, (No. 12537.)
...liability. Johnson v. Adams, 138 S. C. 409, 136 S. E. 8S5; Ford v. Sauls, 138 S. O. 426, 136 S. E. 888; Bradley v. Aimar, 140 S. C. 14, 138 S. E. 401. Why such an action need not be brought in the right of the corporation is thus explained in Ford v. Sauls, supra: "The right of action ......