Cobb v. Garlington

• Decision Date: 13 February 1915
• Docket Number: (No. 8999.)
• Parties: COBB. v. GARLINGTON.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

84 S.E. 302
100 S.C. 51

COBB.
v.
GARLINGTON.

(No. 8999.)

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Feb. 13, 1915.

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Richland County; Geo. E. Prince, Judge.

"To be officially reported."

Action by W. Hampton Cobb, as receiver of the Carolina Agency Company, against John Y. Garlington. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The following is the decree of George E. Prince, Presiding Judge:

This cause came on to be heard before me at the spring term, 1914, of the court of common pleas for Richland county, upon exceptions by both plaintiff and the defendant from the findings of the master, to whom the cause has been referred.

It appears from the record that the cause was originally entitled "Carolina Agency Company, Plaintiff, against John Y. Garlington, Defendant, " but that, a receiver having been appointed for the plaintiff company during the pendency of the action, the receiver of the plaintiff company was by order of the court substituted as plaintiff.

During the hearing of the cause, by agreement of counsel, the hearing was suspended, but the cause marked "Heard, and it was agreed that the hearing would be resumed before me at Anderson, in case I desired to hear further argument upon the matter. Having decided that further argument was necessary, the attorneys for plaintiff and defendant, by agreement between themselves, resumed the argument before me at Anderson, S. C, on July 20, 1914.

Considering first the exceptions taken to the master's report by the defendant, I find that while the matters complained of in exceptions 1 and 2 may not have been relevant upon the issues here in dispute, and that the master could have refrained from making any reference to them, they are not of such a nature as to affect the merits or final result of the cause, and such findings by the master were therefore harmless.

As to the remaining exceptions of the defendant, it is not necessary for them to be taken up in detail. The point is made that, when it appeared in the case that the defendant had been imprisoned in the state penitentiary, the court lost jurisdiction of the defendant and was powerless to proceed without the appointment of a guardian ad litem. It appears from the pleadings, evidence, and proceedings herein that the court had acquired jurisdiction of the defendant and of the cause of action; that the defendant had retained counsel, appeared by them, and answered by a sworn answer before he was imprisoned in the...