Clemson Agricultural College of South Carolina v. Pickens
Decision Date | 26 November 1894 |
Citation | 20 S.E. 401,42 S.C. 511 |
Parties | CLEMSON AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE OF SOUTH CAROLINA v. PICKENS et al. |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from common pleas circuit court of Anderson county; I. D Witherspoon, Judge.
Action by Clemson Agricultural College of South Carolina against Samuel M. Pickens and Samuel McCrary to foreclose a mortgage. A judgment of sale was rendered in favor of plaintiff. Defendant Samuel M. Pickens moved to set aside the service of the summons, order of reference, master's report, and judgment of foreclosure and sale of the property. From an order overruling the motion, defendant Pickens appeals. Affirmed.
Tribble & Prince, for appellant.
O. W Buchanan, Atty. Gen., and J. E. Breazeale for respondent Clemson Agricultural College of South Carolina. Murray & Watkins, for respondent S. McCrary.
On the 9th of February, 1894, the appellant, Pickens, served upon the attorneys for the plaintiff, and Samuel McCrary, who had become the purchaser at the sale hereinafter mentioned, a notice of a motion, together with the affidavits of said Pickens and R. W. Simpson, president of the board of trustees of the Clemson Agricultural College of South Carolina, and a certificate of the master for Anderson county, copies of which are set out in the case, "to set aside the supposed service of the summons, order of reference master's report, judgment of foreclosure, and sale of property thereunder," in the case of Clemson Agricultural College of South Carolina v. Samuel M. Pickens. This motion was heard by his honor, Judge Witherspoon, upon the papers thus served, together with the affidavits of H. H. Blease and G. P. Browne, copies of which are likewise set out in the case, on the 17th of February, 1894, who rendered his decree, in which he says: He therefore rendered judgment refusing the motion, and from such judgment the defendant Pickens appeals, upon the grounds set out in the record, which need not be set out here, as the only question in the case is whether the record in the case of Clemson Agricultural College of South Carolina v. Samuel M. Pickens shows on its face that the court never acquired jurisdiction of the person of the defendant in that case, in which the judgment, as well as the proceedings thereunder, is impeached; for while there are many other irregularities disclosed by that record, they cannot affect the question which we are called upon to determine, except in so far as they show that the defendant would have had a good and valid defense if he had been allowed the opportunity to present the same, by being properly made a party to that action.
From that record, as set out in the case, it appears that, in a case entitled Clemson Agricultural College of South Carolina v. Samuel M. Pickens, a summons was filed in the clerk's office in Anderson county on the 9th of February, 1893, and lodged on the same day with the sheriff of that county, addressed to Samuel M. Pickens, calling upon him "to answer this complaint in this action, of which a copy is herewith served upon you." Upon this summons the sheriff endorsed the following return, dated 18th April, 1893: "The defendant is non est inventus in my county, but, am informed, resides now in Elberton, Georgia."
Next, we find a paper purporting to be a complaint in said action, but not signed by either plaintiff or its attorney, filed in the office of said clerk on the 9th of February, 1893, for the foreclosure of a mortgage of certain real estate in Anderson county, executed by defendant to one Thomas G. Clemson on the 20th of December, 1887, and given to secure the payment of a note made to said Clemson by the defendant on the 20th September, 1887, and payable on the 1st December, 1888, for the sum of $1,000. This so-called complaint alleges that said Clemson, by his last will and testament, duly admitted to probate, devised and bequeathed all his real and personal estate, including said note and mortgage, to the state of South Carolina, for the purpose of establishing an agricultural college; to the state of South Carolina, for the purpose of establishing an agricultural college; that the state duly accepted said devise and bequest, and duly complied with the conditions thereof, by the act of 27th December, 1889, "whereby said state became the owner of the within-named note and mortgage, which by said act was vested in the plaintiffs as herein mentioned"; that by said act the trustees of said college were incorporated as a body politic and corporate under the name and style of the Clemson Agricultural College of South Carolina, with power to sue and be sued; and the prayer was for a sale of the mortgaged premises, application of proceeds to the payment of said debt, and that execution be awarded against defendant for any deficiency. This complaint purports to be verified by the affidavit of W. T. C. Bates, described as "plaintiff in this action." We also find the following indorsement on the summons above mentioned:
We next find the following statement made in the case: ' This affidavit was sworn to in the usual form on the 17th of April, 1893.
It is further stated in the case that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial