Epworth Orphanage Of The South Carolina Conference v. Strange, No. 13008.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtSTABLER
PartiesEPWORTH ORPHANAGE OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA CONFERENCE. v. STRANGE et al.
Decision Date24 October 1930
Docket NumberNo. 13008.

155 S.E. 594

EPWORTH ORPHANAGE OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA CONFERENCE.
v.
STRANGE et al.

No. 13008.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Oct. 24, 1930.


[155 S.E. 595]

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Allendale County; C. C. Featherstone and T. S. Sease, Judges.

Action by the Epworth Orphanage of the South Carolina Conference (Methodist Episcopal Church, South) against M. F. Strange, the Federal Land Bank of Columbia, and another. From certain orders following reversal and remand by the Supreme Court (348 S. C. 500, 146 S. E. 414), the last-named defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

T. H. Moffatt, of Columbia, and Du Rant & Sneeden, of Manning, for appellant.

James M. Patterson and Searson & Searson, all of Allendale, for respondents.

STABLER, J.

On January 29, 1920, the defendant Strange purchased from the plaintiff, Epworth Orphanage, a tract of land for $3,038.-90, paying part in cash and securing the balance of the purchase money by a mortgage of the land. On September 7, 1922, no part of this indebtedness having been paid, Mrs. Strange, who owned other real estate, conveyed to her daughter, Olivia S. Palmer, defendant in this case, two tracts of land, one of which contained 259 acres; and at the same time she conveyed to her daughter, Alma S. Farmer, two other lots or tracts. On March 17, 1923, Mrs. Palmer borrowed from the Federal Land Bank of Columbia $2,200, securing the debt by a mortgage of the 259-acre tract. On August 3, 1923, the orphanage, having learned of the conveyances of Mrs. Strange to her daughters, instituted proceedings for the foreclosure of its mortgage. The land was sold, and a deficiency judgment of $1,044.16 was entered up against Mrs. Strange. Thereafter execution was issued and a nulla bona return made. On May 3, 1924, the plaintiff began this action against Mrs. Strange and Mrs. Palmer, and at the same time another against Mrs. Strange and Mrs. Farmer, for the purpose of having deeds declared fraudulent and void as to plaintiff and canceled of record. Mrs. Strange and Mrs. Palmer filed answers denying all allegations of fraud or fraudulent intent.

The land bank was not made a party when suit was instituted, but thereafter was brought in, on motion of counsel for the defendants, by order of Judge Townsend dated May 8, 1924. The complaint was then amended by adding the bank as a party and inserting a paragraph as follows:

"10. That the plaintiff is informed and believes that The Federal Land, Bank of Columbia has or claims some interest in or to some of the lands herein described and is made a party defendant that it may come in and set. up any rights it may have therein."

Service was made on the defendant bank on June 4, 1924. It did not answer the complaint, but, after some correspondence between its attorney and plaintiff's attorneys, an agreement was made in writing that the bank would not file an answer in the cases or participate in the proceedings, and that plaintiff's attorneys would take no decree or order in the cases that would in any manner affect the indebtedness to the bank or the mortgage securing same, but that such mortgage should remain a valid first lien on the lands described therein. It does not appear that the attorneys for the defendants Strange and Palmer knew anything of this agreement at the time. The cases were later referred to a special referee, who found that the deeds were not fraudulent and recommended that the complaints be dismissed. On exceptions, Judge T. J. Mauldin confirmed the report as to both law and fact, whereupon the plaintiff appealed to this court, which, on January 30, 1929, reversed the decree and gave judgment as follows:

"The judgment of this court is that the judgment of the circuit court be reversed, and that the ease be remanded to that court with directions to enter a decree granting the prayer of the complaint in each case and making such administrative orders as may be necessary to carry it into effect." 148 S. C. 500, ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Gardner v. Kirven, No. 14486.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 18, 1937
    ...S.E. 788; South Carolina Cotton Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v. English, 135 S.C. 19, 133 S.E. 542; Epworth Orphanage v. Strange, 158 S.C. 379, 155 S.E. 594; Bailey v. Blackmon, 3 F. (2d) 252, 253 (C.C.A.S.C.). One is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his act. Rice v. City of Columbia......
  • Robbins v. Dinkins, No.15776.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • October 31, 1945
    ...S.E. 788; South Carolina Cotton Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v. English, 135 S.C. 19, 133 S.E. 542; Epworth Orphanage v. Strange, 158 S.C. 379, 155 S.E. 594; Bailey v. Blackmon, 4 Cir., 3 F.2d 252, 253."—Gardner v. Kirven, 184 S.C. 37, 191 S.E. 814, 816. A close study of the testimony reveals that......
  • Fed. Land Bank Of D.C. v. Palmer, No. 13692.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • September 15, 1933
    ...the CHIEF JUSTICE in his very able opinion in this case. By reference to Epworth Orphanage v. Strange et al., reported in 158 S. C. 379, 155 S. E. 594, it will be found that, after that action was instituted, the land bank, appellant here, was made a party by order of Judge Townsend, on mot......
  • Prudential Ins. Co. Of Am. v. Lemmons, No. 13011.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • October 25, 1930
    ...declared in all the prior cases. In reaching its conclusion, the court, so far from indicating a repudiation of the principle, simply held[155 S.E. 594]that its requirements were not met under the facts and circumstances of that case, as the record did not "show the existence of any equitie......
4 cases
  • Gardner v. Kirven, No. 14486.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 18, 1937
    ...S.E. 788; South Carolina Cotton Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v. English, 135 S.C. 19, 133 S.E. 542; Epworth Orphanage v. Strange, 158 S.C. 379, 155 S.E. 594; Bailey v. Blackmon, 3 F. (2d) 252, 253 (C.C.A.S.C.). One is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his act. Rice v. City of Columbia......
  • Robbins v. Dinkins, No.15776.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • October 31, 1945
    ...S.E. 788; South Carolina Cotton Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v. English, 135 S.C. 19, 133 S.E. 542; Epworth Orphanage v. Strange, 158 S.C. 379, 155 S.E. 594; Bailey v. Blackmon, 4 Cir., 3 F.2d 252, 253."—Gardner v. Kirven, 184 S.C. 37, 191 S.E. 814, 816. A close study of the testimony reveals that......
  • Fed. Land Bank Of D.C. v. Palmer, No. 13692.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • September 15, 1933
    ...the CHIEF JUSTICE in his very able opinion in this case. By reference to Epworth Orphanage v. Strange et al., reported in 158 S. C. 379, 155 S. E. 594, it will be found that, after that action was instituted, the land bank, appellant here, was made a party by order of Judge Townsend, on mot......
  • Prudential Ins. Co. Of Am. v. Lemmons, No. 13011.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • October 25, 1930
    ...declared in all the prior cases. In reaching its conclusion, the court, so far from indicating a repudiation of the principle, simply held[155 S.E. 594]that its requirements were not met under the facts and circumstances of that case, as the record did not "show the existence of any equitie......

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