Holly Hill Lumber Co Inc v. Mccoy, No. 15960.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
Citation43 S.E.2d 143
PartiesHOLLY HILL LUMBER CO, Inc. v. McCOY.
Decision Date13 June 1947
Docket NumberNo. 15960.

43 S.E.2d 143

HOLLY HILL LUMBER CO, Inc.
v.
McCOY.

No. 15960.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

June 13, 1947.


Appeal from Common Pleas Court of Orangeburg County; J. Robert Martin, Jr., Judge.

Action by the Holly Hill Lumber Company, Inc. against Addison E. McCoy involving a bond secured by mortgage. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant appeals.

Appeal dismissed.

See also 207 S.C. 428, 36 S.E.2d 140.

M. W. Scabrook, of Sumter, for appellant.

T. B. Bryant, Jr., of Orangeburg, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The question involved in this appeal is whether or not appellant is entitled to a bond for $1,666.67 (this being the amount of the dower interest), and interest, secured by a mortgage on the property. For a full understanding of this case, the three former decisions of this Court should be read, which are reported respectively in 201 S.C. 427, 23 S.E.2d 372; 203 S.C. 59, 26 S.E.2d 175, 148 A.L.R. 285 and 205 S.C. 60, 30 S.E. 2d 856.

In the third appeal, we find that exception No. 27 reads as follows: "His Honor, Judge Gaston, erred, it is respectfully submitted, in decreeing that if the defendant failed or refused to comply, and if the parties do not agree upon a plan to consumate and accomplish the aims of his decree, then plaintiff may pay $9,990.00 ($10.00 having already been paid) to the Clerk of Court, and that said Clerk shall forthwith deliver to plaintiff the deed heretofore deposited with him by Addison E. McCoy, and thereupon, fee simple title to the premises shall vest in the plaintiff, and the inchoate right and claim of dower on the part of Sara S. McCoy in and to said premises shall be forever barred, and the Sheriff shall put the plaintiff in possession; which was error, because contrary to the evidence in the case, and the equities involved, and beyond the scope of the pleadings."

The $9,990 was paid to the Clerk of the Court by respondent, and the deed was in turn delivered by the Clerk to him. Appellant now seeks a bond for the amount of the dower secured by a mortgage on the property rather than the $1,666.67 which is on deposit with the Clerk of Court.

The above-quoted exception raised the same...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • Nelson v. Charleston & W. C. Ry. Co., No. 17306
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • June 10, 1957
    ...162 S.E. 239; Cohen v. Standard Accident Insurance Co., 203 S.C. 263, 17 S.E.2d 230; Holly Hill Lumber Co., Inc., v. McCoy, 210 S.C. 440, 43 S.E.2d 143; Royal Crown Bottling Co. v. Chandler, 228 S.C. 412, 90 S.E.2d Although we granted appellant's counsel permission to argue against that por......
  • Mazloom v. Mazloom, No. 26972.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 9, 2011
    ...by the [392 S.C. 404] court of appeals and not raised in petition for rehearing); Holly Hill Lumber Co. v. McCoy, 210 S.C. 440, 442, 43 S.E.2d 143, 144 (1947) (holding issue not raised in petition for rehearing is the law of the case). As to the remaining issue, we find no error on the part......
2 cases
  • Nelson v. Charleston & W. C. Ry. Co., No. 17306
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • June 10, 1957
    ...162 S.E. 239; Cohen v. Standard Accident Insurance Co., 203 S.C. 263, 17 S.E.2d 230; Holly Hill Lumber Co., Inc., v. McCoy, 210 S.C. 440, 43 S.E.2d 143; Royal Crown Bottling Co. v. Chandler, 228 S.C. 412, 90 S.E.2d Although we granted appellant's counsel permission to argue against that por......
  • Mazloom v. Mazloom, No. 26972.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 9, 2011
    ...by the [392 S.C. 404] court of appeals and not raised in petition for rehearing); Holly Hill Lumber Co. v. McCoy, 210 S.C. 440, 442, 43 S.E.2d 143, 144 (1947) (holding issue not raised in petition for rehearing is the law of the case). As to the remaining issue, we find no error on the part......

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