Greene v. Mobley, (No. 10221.)

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtFRASER
Citation99 S.E. 814
Decision Date14 July 1919
Docket Number(No. 10221.)
PartiesGREENE v. MOBLEY et al.

99 S.E. 814

GREENE
v.
MOBLEY et al.

(No. 10221.)

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

July 14, 1919.


Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of York County; R. W. Memminger, Judge.

Action by G. H. Greene against H. G. Mobley and another. Decree for defendants, and plaintiff excepts and appeals. Reversed.

John A. Marion, of York, for appellant.

J. Harry Foster, of Rock Hill, for respondents.

FRASER, J. The case shows:

"This is an action to set aside a deed as fraudulent under the statute of Elizabeth, and was commenced by service of summons and complaint December 7, 1917. The complaint alleges, in substance, that the defendant H. G. Mobley became indebted to plaintiff, G. H. Greene, on February 5, 1916, in sum of $2,422.87, as evidenced by a promissory note given on that day, due February 5, 1917; that on September 10, 1917, after debt became due and while plaintiff was pushing for payment of the same, H. G. Mobley transferred to his codefendant, Cassie 1. Mobley, his wife, a certain lot of land described in the complaint; the said transfer being without consideration and leaving defendant insolvent and being made with intent to hinder, delay, and defraud plaintiff. The consideration recited on the deed was $1 and love and affection.

"Both defendants answered, setting up that the transaction was without fraud and was made for a good and valuable consideration.

"The case was referred, by consent, to C. W. F. Spencer, Esq., as special referee, to pass upon all issues. While the case was pending before the said referee, an order was passed by him allowing the plaintiff to file a supplemental complaint setting up the issuance of execution and nulla bona return on the judgment of plaintiff recited in the original complaint. No appeal was made from said order, and in accordance therewith a supplemental complaint, alleging only the issuance of execution and nulla bona return on judgment recited, was duly served on defendant's attorney. No answer or demurrer was made or served to the said pleading, and in accordance therewith nulla bona return was duly introduced into evidence.

"The referee took testimony and filed his report, in which he found that the transfer in question was made without consideration and was mala fide and should be set aside.

"The defendants duly excepted to the said report, and the case came on to be heard at the December term, court of common pleas, York county. His honor, on December 14, 1918, filed a brief order reversing the referee...

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
    ...641, 647; Izard v. Middleton, Bailey Eq. [228] 236; Jenkins v. Clement, Harp.Eq. [72] 85, 14 Am.Dec. 698; Greene v. Mobley, 112 S.C. 275, 99 S.E. 814; Magovern v. Richard, 27 S.C. [272] 286, 3 S.E. 340; Rice v. City of Columbia, 143 S.C. 516, 141 S.E. 705. * * * "If in the final event the p......
  • Penning Et At v. Reid, No. 13492.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • October 17, 1932
    ...E. 640, 641, 647; Izard v. Middleton, Bailey, Eq. 236; Jenkins v. Clement, Harp. Eq. 85, 14 Am. Dec. 698; Greene v. Mobley, 112 S. C. 275, 99 S. E. 814; Magovern v. Richard, 27 S. C. 286, 3 S. E. 340; Rice v. City of Columbia, 143 S. C. 516, 141 S. E. 705. Every element, every condition, ev......
  • Newton v. Batson, No. 16769
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • August 3, 1953
    ...on the parol evidence rule. Defendant[223 S.C. 549] cites Drake v. Drake, 148 S.C. 147, 145 S.E. 705, Greene v. Mobley, 112 S.C. 275, 99 S.E. 814, and other cases for the familiar rule that parol evidence is not admissible to contradict the terms of a written contract or deed. While this ru......
  • State v. Peeples, (No. 10224.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • July 14, 1919
    ...holds that the husband is required, primarily, to furnish necessaries of life for his wife at his residence. The defendant resided in Ker-[99 S.E. 814]shaw county, and the place the appellant was required to furnish necessaries was in Kershaw county. The offense was committed in Kershaw cou......
4 cases
  • Gardner v. Kirven, No. 14486.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 18, 1937
    ...641, 647; Izard v. Middleton, Bailey Eq. [228] 236; Jenkins v. Clement, Harp.Eq. [72] 85, 14 Am.Dec. 698; Greene v. Mobley, 112 S.C. 275, 99 S.E. 814; Magovern v. Richard, 27 S.C. [272] 286, 3 S.E. 340; Rice v. City of Columbia, 143 S.C. 516, 141 S.E. 705. * * * "If in the final event the p......
  • Penning Et At v. Reid, No. 13492.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • October 17, 1932
    ...E. 640, 641, 647; Izard v. Middleton, Bailey, Eq. 236; Jenkins v. Clement, Harp. Eq. 85, 14 Am. Dec. 698; Greene v. Mobley, 112 S. C. 275, 99 S. E. 814; Magovern v. Richard, 27 S. C. 286, 3 S. E. 340; Rice v. City of Columbia, 143 S. C. 516, 141 S. E. 705. Every element, every condition, ev......
  • Newton v. Batson, No. 16769
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • August 3, 1953
    ...on the parol evidence rule. Defendant[223 S.C. 549] cites Drake v. Drake, 148 S.C. 147, 145 S.E. 705, Greene v. Mobley, 112 S.C. 275, 99 S.E. 814, and other cases for the familiar rule that parol evidence is not admissible to contradict the terms of a written contract or deed. While this ru......
  • State v. Peeples, (No. 10224.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • July 14, 1919
    ...holds that the husband is required, primarily, to furnish necessaries of life for his wife at his residence. The defendant resided in Ker-[99 S.E. 814]shaw county, and the place the appellant was required to furnish necessaries was in Kershaw county. The offense was committed in Kershaw cou......

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