Carsten v. Wilson, No. 18019

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtMOSS; TAYLOR
Citation241 S.C. 516,129 S.E.2d 431
PartiesC. G. CARSTEN, Respondent, v. Willie WILSON, J. T. Floyd, L. R. Laird, and Ray Truluck and C. Harry Truluck, doing business under the firm name and style of Truluck Brothers, of whom Willie Wilson is, Appellant.
Docket NumberNo. 18019
Decision Date29 January 1963

Page 431

129 S.E.2d 431
241 S.C. 516
C. G. CARSTEN, Respondent,
v.
Willie WILSON, J. T. Floyd, L. R. Laird, and Ray Truluck and
C. Harry Truluck, doing business under the firm
name and style of Truluck Brothers, of
whom Willie Wilson is, Appellant.
No. 18019.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Jan. 29, 1963.

Page 432

[241 S.C. 517] Frank E. Cain, Jr., Bennettsville, for appellant.

Shuler & Harrell, Kingstree, for respondent.

MOSS, Justice.

This is an action to foreclose a real estate mortgage executed and delivered by one Arrington Wilson to C. G. Carsten, the respondent herein. The mortgage, dated December 1, 1954, was given to secure the payment of an indebtedness represented by a bond in the amount of $14,156.00, which said bond was due on December 1, 1957. The mortgage constituted a lien upon a tract of land containing one hundred and eighty-seven acres owned by the said Arrington Wilson.

It is admitted that on August 27, 1957, Arrington Wilson conveyed the mortgaged premises to his son, Willie Wilson, [241 S.C. 518] the appellant herein. The complaint alleges that by this deed the appellant agreed to assume the payment of the debt secured by the aforesaid mortgage.

The allegations of the complaint are the usual ones found in an action for the foreclosure

Page 433

of a real estate mortgage. The appellant by answer, sets up (1) a general denial; (2) 'that said Arrington Wilson was illiterate and unable to understand the nature and effect of any written instrument, and was unable to sign his name to same, except by mark'; (3) a specific denial that Arrington Wilson was indebted to the respondent in any amount whatsoever; and (4) that the mortgage sought to be foreclosed was without consideration and constituted a cloud on the appellant's title to the land in question.

The respondent moved before the Honorable James Hugh McFaddin, Resident Judge of the Third Circuit, for an Order of Reference and for the appointment of a receiver for the mortgaged premises. Thereafter, on March 10, 1962, Judge McFaddin issued a general Order of Reference appointing the Honorable Phillip C. Stoll, as Special Referee, to hear and determine all issues made by the pleadings and to report the same to the Court. The motion for the appointment of a receiver was denied. Pursuant to the Order of Reference, the Special Referee convened a hearing on April 5, 1962, at which time the testimony was taken. Thereafter, the said Special Referee did, on April 21, 1962, file his report in the office of the Clerk of Court for Williamsburg County, and due notice of such filing was given to the attorneys for the appellant. The Special Referee found that the mortgage sought to be foreclosed was executed by Arrington Wilson to the respondent, who issued his check in the exact amount of the debt secured by the mortgage, and this fund was properly disbursed for the benefit of the said Arrington Wilson by Shuler and Harrell, Attorneys at Law of Kingstree, South Carolina. The Special Referee further found that there was no failure of consideration and that the mortgage was executed to secure the payment of the indebtedness represented [241 S.C. 519] by the bond, and foreclosure was recommended because of default in the payment of the indebtedness secured by the said mortgage. The Special Referee also found that the said Arrington Wilson was mentally competent at the time he executed the said bond and mortgage to the respondent.

It further appears that no exceptions were filed by the appellant to the Report of the said Special...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
  • Bob Jones University, Inc. v. City of Greenville, No. 18139
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • December 11, 1963
    ...such findings unless they are without evidentiary support or are against the clear preponderance of the evidence. Carsten v. Wilson, 241 S.C. 516, 219 S.E.2d We find no merit in the contention of the appellant that the rezoning ordinance amounts to a taking of its property for a private or ......
  • Carolina Commercial Bank v. Allendale Furniture Co., Inc., No. 0059
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • February 6, 1984
    ...such findings are without any evidence to support them or against the clear preponderance of the evidence. Carsten v. Wilson, Page 573 241 S.C. 516, 129 S.E.2d 431 (1963); Townes Associates v. City of Greenville, 266 S.C. 81, 221 S.E.2d 773 (1976). I have considered Allendale's exceptions a......
  • Collier v. Green, No. 18231
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • June 25, 1964
    ...v. Bomar, 178 S.C. 455, 183 S.E. 34. An action for the foreclosure of a real estate mortgage is one in equity. Carsten v. Wilson, 241 S.C. 516, 129 S.E.2d Section 10-1402 of the 1962 Code provides when a reference may be compulsorily ordered. This section provides: 'When the parties do not ......
  • Byrd v. King, No. 18295
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • January 19, 1965
    ...it is shown that such findings are without evidentiary support or against the clear preponderance of the evidence. Carsten v. Wilson, 241 S.C. 516, 129 S.E.2d 431. It was particularly within the province of the Master to pass upon the credibility of witnesses whom he saw and heard. Hamilton......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 cases
  • Bob Jones University, Inc. v. City of Greenville, No. 18139
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • December 11, 1963
    ...such findings unless they are without evidentiary support or are against the clear preponderance of the evidence. Carsten v. Wilson, 241 S.C. 516, 219 S.E.2d We find no merit in the contention of the appellant that the rezoning ordinance amounts to a taking of its property for a private or ......
  • Carolina Commercial Bank v. Allendale Furniture Co., Inc., No. 0059
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • February 6, 1984
    ...such findings are without any evidence to support them or against the clear preponderance of the evidence. Carsten v. Wilson, Page 573 241 S.C. 516, 129 S.E.2d 431 (1963); Townes Associates v. City of Greenville, 266 S.C. 81, 221 S.E.2d 773 (1976). I have considered Allendale's exceptions a......
  • Collier v. Green, No. 18231
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • June 25, 1964
    ...v. Bomar, 178 S.C. 455, 183 S.E. 34. An action for the foreclosure of a real estate mortgage is one in equity. Carsten v. Wilson, 241 S.C. 516, 129 S.E.2d Section 10-1402 of the 1962 Code provides when a reference may be compulsorily ordered. This section provides: 'When the parties do not ......
  • Byrd v. King, No. 18295
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • January 19, 1965
    ...it is shown that such findings are without evidentiary support or against the clear preponderance of the evidence. Carsten v. Wilson, 241 S.C. 516, 129 S.E.2d 431. It was particularly within the province of the Master to pass upon the credibility of witnesses whom he saw and heard. Hamilton......
  • 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