Johnson v. Adams' Estate, (No. 12165.)

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtCOTHRAN
Citation136 S.E. 885
Docket Number(No. 12165.)
Decision Date28 February 1927
PartiesJOHNSON et al. v. ADAMS' ESTATE et al.

136 S.E. 885

JOHNSON et al.
v.
ADAMS' ESTATE et al.

(No. 12165.)

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Feb. 28, 1927.


[Ed. Note.—For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Assets.]

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Richland County; E. C. Dennis, Judge.

Action by Harvey W. Johnson, as receiver of the Bank of Cross Anchor, against the estate of W. C. Adams and others, wherein Mr. James E. Peurifoy, receiver of American Bank & Trust Company, filed a petition seek-

[136 S.E. 886]

ing to restrain further proceedings in case. From an order permitting plaintiff to proceed with the action, James E. Peurifoy as receiver appeals. Affirmed.

The exceptions of the receiver, directed to be reported, are as follows:

"(1) That the court erred in dismissing the petition and refusing to restrain the further prosecution of this action, because:

"(a) The court in the case of John I. Rice and others, having previously taken jurisdiction of the entire matter, this court was without authority to warrant the bringing of this suit.

"(b) The court having previously, by its orders in the case of John I. Rice et al. v. City of Columbia et al., called in all claimants and depositors into said action, and having appointed Jas. E. Peurifoy receiver of stockholders' liability, and having authorized him to collect the stockholders' liability, Judge Dennis was without jurisdiction, on November 23, 1926, to make the order in this case authorizing the prosecution of this action and enjoining suits by depositors in any other action.

"(c) The action of John I. Rice et al. v. City of Columbia et al., to which stockholders and depositors were already duly made parties, and in which a receiver had been duly appointed, was the proper and appropriate action in which to bring and prosecute and adjust all questions as to stockholders' liability.

D. W. Robinson and D. W. Robinson, Jr., both of Columbia, for appellant.

Thomas & Lumpkin, of Columbia, and Bo-mar & Osborne, of Spartanburg, for respondents.

COTHRAN, J. This is an appeal from an order in the case of Johnson, receiver of Cross Anchor Bank, against Adams and others, by his honor Judge Dennis, dated December 10, 1926, refusing the petition of James E. Peurifoy, receiver of the American Bank & Trust Company, appointed in the case of Rice v. City of Columbia, for an order "canceling, withdrawing, and revoking" an order made by his honor, Judge Dennis, in the Johnson Case, dated November 23, 1926, enjoining actions for the enforcement of stockholders' liability except in the Johnson Case.

In brief the controversy is whether the liability of the stockholders of the American Bank & Trust Company shall be enforced for the benefit of depositors in the present case, for convenience referred to as the Johnson Case, or by the receiver of that company appointed in the Rice Case.

On July 1, 1926, an action was instituted in the court of common pleas for Richland county, entitled John I. Rice et al., Plaintiffs, against City of Columbia et al., Defendants, for the purpose of setting aside certain preferences alleged to have been given by the American Bank & Trust Company when it was insolvent, and an order of injunction was issued restraining the disposition of the alleged preferences. This order was signed by his honor, Judge Townsend.

On July 2, 1926, a further order was signed by the same circuit judge, enjoining all suits connected with the subject-matter of the complaint, except in the Rice action.

Soon thereafter the city of Columbia, a defendant in the Rice action, filed a petition in that action, asking the court to appoint a receiver of the bank and for an order making the bank and Bradley, state bank examiner, who had been appointed receiver under section 3985, Civ....

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 practice notes
  • Shaw v. Strong, No. 5942.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • July 22, 1936
    ...46 N.E. 580, 36 L.R.A. 645; Andrew v. State Bank, 214 Iowa, 1339, 242 N.W. 62, 82 A.L.R. 1280; Johnson v. Adams' Estate, 138 S.C. 409, 136 S.E. 885. We also list those contra as follows: Clark v. Bank of Union, 72 W.Va. 491, 78 S.E. 785, 786; Benedum v. First Citizens' Bank, 72 W.Va. 124, 7......
  • Branchville Motor Co v. Adden, No. 12979.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • September 30, 1930
    ...the corporation or its receiver or its board of liquidating trustees have absolutely nothing to do." Johnson v. Adams, 138 S. C. 409, 136 S. E. 885, 887; Ford v. Sauls, 138 S. C. 426, 136 S. E. 888; Bradley v. Aimar, 140 S. C. 14, 138 S. E. 401; Ex parte Fant, 147 S. C. 167, 145 S. E. 34; S......
  • Petition Of Fant v. Allan, (No. 12502.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • September 27, 1928
    ...but to their distinct prejudice. It is not intended to impinge upon the rule established by the cases of Johnson v. Adams, 13S S. C. 409, 136 S. E. 885, State v. Bank of Clio, 129 S. C. 109, 123 S. E. 773, Ford v. Sauls, 138 S. C. 426, 136 S. E. 888, and Bradley v. Aimar, 140 S. C. 14, 138 ......
  • Shaw v. Strong, No. 3955.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • February 7, 1931
    ...v. Kelly, 141 Okl. 36, 284 P. 65; American Exch. Bank v. Rowsey, 144 Okl. 172, 289 P. 726; Johnson v. Adams' Estate, 138 S. C. 409, 136 S. E. 885; Bennett v. Wilkes County, 164 Ga. 790, 139 S. E. 566; Houston Nat. Exch. Bank v. Chapman (Tex. Civ. App.) 263 S. W. 929; Runner v. Dwiggins, 147......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • Shaw v. Strong, No. 5942.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • July 22, 1936
    ...46 N.E. 580, 36 L.R.A. 645; Andrew v. State Bank, 214 Iowa, 1339, 242 N.W. 62, 82 A.L.R. 1280; Johnson v. Adams' Estate, 138 S.C. 409, 136 S.E. 885. We also list those contra as follows: Clark v. Bank of Union, 72 W.Va. 491, 78 S.E. 785, 786; Benedum v. First Citizens' Bank, 72 W.Va. 124, 7......
  • Branchville Motor Co v. Adden, No. 12979.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • September 30, 1930
    ...the corporation or its receiver or its board of liquidating trustees have absolutely nothing to do." Johnson v. Adams, 138 S. C. 409, 136 S. E. 885, 887; Ford v. Sauls, 138 S. C. 426, 136 S. E. 888; Bradley v. Aimar, 140 S. C. 14, 138 S. E. 401; Ex parte Fant, 147 S. C. 167, 145 S. E. 34; S......
  • Petition Of Fant v. Allan, (No. 12502.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • September 27, 1928
    ...but to their distinct prejudice. It is not intended to impinge upon the rule established by the cases of Johnson v. Adams, 13S S. C. 409, 136 S. E. 885, State v. Bank of Clio, 129 S. C. 109, 123 S. E. 773, Ford v. Sauls, 138 S. C. 426, 136 S. E. 888, and Bradley v. Aimar, 140 S. C. 14, 138 ......
  • Shaw v. Strong, No. 3955.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • February 7, 1931
    ...v. Kelly, 141 Okl. 36, 284 P. 65; American Exch. Bank v. Rowsey, 144 Okl. 172, 289 P. 726; Johnson v. Adams' Estate, 138 S. C. 409, 136 S. E. 885; Bennett v. Wilkes County, 164 Ga. 790, 139 S. E. 566; Houston Nat. Exch. Bank v. Chapman (Tex. Civ. App.) 263 S. W. 929; Runner v. Dwiggins, 147......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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