Chisolm v. Carolina Agency Co, (No. 10678.)

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtCOTHRAN
Citation118 S.E. 529
Docket Number(No. 10678.)
Decision Date01 August 1922
PartiesCHISOLM et al. v. CAROLINA AGENCY CO. et al.

118 S.E. 529

CHISOLM et al.
v.
CAROLINA AGENCY CO. et al.

(No. 10678.)

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Aug. 1, 1922.


[118 S.E. 529]

On Reargument, Aug. 6, 1923.

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Richland County; Wm. H. Townsend, Judge.

Action by E. N. Chisolm and others against the Carolina Agency Company and others. Prom an order granting plaintiffs' attorneys a fee out of corporate funds, defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded.

D. W. Robinson, of Columbia, for appellants.

P. G. Tompkins and Nelson & Gettys, all of Columbia, and Adam H. Moss, of Orangeberg, for respondents.

COTHRAN, J. [1] This appeal is from an order of Judge Townsend, dated June 21, 1920, allowing a fee of $750, out of the funds of the corporation in the hands of the receiver, to the attorneys of the plaintiffs, minority stockholders, "for their services in bringing this action and procuring the appointment of the receiver."

The question for determination is: Were they under the circumstances of this litigation entitled thereto?

This necessitates a brief review of the facts and proceedings connected with a disastrous venture.

The Carolina Agency Company was chartered in 1907, for the purpose of taking over the general agency of a Georgia insurance company in South Carolina, which was controlled by one John Y. Garlington. He was the moving spirit of the new corporation and by mismanagement completely wrecked it. The details found in Carolina Agency Co. v. Garlington, 85 S. C. 114, 67 S. E. 225, Chisholm v. Carolina Agency Co., 88 S. C. 438, 70 S. E. 1035, and Cobb v. Garlington, 100 S. C. 51, 84 S. E. 302, will not be restated.

In 1909 the Carolina Agency Company brought suit against Garlington for $25,000, alleged to be due by him to the corporation and attached certain of his property. An effort was made by him to dissolve the attachment which failed, 85 S. C. 114, 67 S. E. 225, the opinion being filed March 5, 1910.

In the meantime, October, 1909, the plaintiffs, minority stockholders, instituted the present action for the appointment of a receiver of the corporation, and in the same month an order was signed by Judge Memminger appointing a receiver, which was affirmed 88 S. C. 438, 70 S. E. 1035, April 21, 1911.

Thereafter the receiver prosecuted the action which had been begun by the corporation as above stated against Garlington, and recovered a judgment against him for $25,000, which was affirmed, 100 S. C. 51, 84 S. E. 302, February 13, 1915.

The assets of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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