Hatnes v. Hoffman
Decision Date | 12 March 1896 |
Citation | 46 S.C. 157,24 S.E. 103 |
Parties | HATNES. v. HOFFMAN et al. |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Assignment fob Benefit of Creditors—Preference—Reservation of Homestead — Attorney's Pee.
1. Under Rev. St. 1893, § 2147, rendering illegal preferences to creditors within 90 days before the making of an assignment by an insolvent debtor, in fraud of the assignment law, a mortgage given within that time by an insolvent to his brother was not invalid, where it was shown that it covered only the debtor's homestead, which was exempt; that the debt secured was for borrowed money, with which the property was purchased; that the mortgage was given in compliance with a written agreement, made four years before, when the money was borrowed; and that the mortgagee did not know of the mortgagor's insolvency.
2. A reservation, in a deed of assignment, of such real and personal property of the assignor as is exempt under the homestead laws of the state, does not invalidate the assignment.
3. A provision for the payment of a fee to the assignor's attorney for preparing the assignment does not invalidate the assignment.
Appeal from common pleas circuit court of Barnwell county; Ernest Gary, Judge.
Action by B. F. Haynes against Joseph B. Hoffman and others to set aside an assignment for the benefit of creditors by said Hoffman, and a mortgage alleged to have been a preference. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Reversed.
The following are the pleadings and the affidavit of J. B. Hoffman, referred to in the opinion:
A. D. 1889. Together with all and singular the rights, members, hereditaments, and appurtenances to the said premises belonging or in anywise incident or appertaining. To have and to hold, all and singular, the said premises unto the said John S. C. Hoffman, his heirs and assigns, forever. And I do hereby bind myself, and my heirs, executors, and administrators, to warrant and forever defend, all and singular, the said premises unto the said John S. C. Hoffman, his heirs and assigns, from and against myself and my heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, and against all other persons whomsoever, lawfully claiming or to claim the same, or any part thereof. And it is agreed by and between the said parties, that the said mortgagor, his heirs, executors, or administrators, shall and will forthwith insure the house and building on said lot, and keep the same insured from loss or damage by fire, and assign the policy of insurance to the said John S. C. Hoffman, his executors, administrators, or assigns; and in case he or they shall at any time neglect or fail to do so, then the said mortgagee, his executors, administrators, or assigns, may cause the same to be insured in their own name, and reimburse themselves for the premium and expense of such insurance under the mortgage. Provided always, nevertheless, and it is the true intent and meaning of the parties to these presents, that if I, the said Joseph
B. Hoffman, do and shall well and truly pay or cause to be paid unto the said John S. C. Hoffman the said debt or sum of money aforesaid, with the interest thereon, if any shall be due, according to the true intent and meaning of the said bond and condition thereunder written, then this deed of bargain and sale shall cease, determine, and be utterly null and void; otherwise, it shall remain in full force and virtue. And it Is agreed, by and between the parties, that I, the said Joseph B. Hoffman, to hold and enjoy said premises until default of payment shall be made. Witness my hand and seal this ——-day of ——, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety-four, and in the one hundred and nineteenth year of the sovereignty and independence of the United States of America. J. B. Hoffman. [L. S.]
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rice v. City of Columbia
... ... preferential transfers which are null and void under section ... 5512. See the cases of Haynes v. Hoffman, 46 S.C ... 157, 24 S.E. 103; Durham Fet. Co. v. Hemphill, 45 ... S.C. 621, 24 S.E. 85; Adler v. Cloud, 42 S.C. 272, ... 20 S.E. 383; ... ...
-
Abrams v. United States
...payment for "`legal advice' previously given" would have been proper. The law of South Carolina is to the same effect, Haynes v. Hoffman, 1896, 46 S.C. 157, 24 S.C. 103; Verner v. Davis, 1887, 26 S.C. 609, 2 S.E. 114 (both involving payment to the assignor's attorney for drawing the deed of......
- Haynes v. Hoffman
-
Finley v. Cartwright
... ... property which the creditors of her husband have a right to ... subject to the payment of their claims. Haynes v ... Hoffman, 46 S.C. 167, 24 S.E. 103, and cases cited ... therein. A. Y. Cartwright was in no way bound to assign for ... the benefit of creditors property ... ...