Ladshaw v. Drake
| Decision Date | 31 May 1937 |
| Docket Number | 14489. |
| Parties | LADSHAW v. DRAKE et al. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Marlboro County; E. C Dennis, Judge.
Proceeding by James N. Drake, assignee for benefit of creditors of A. D Matheson, for approval of agreement by which Mrs. Nonie McLaurin Matheson, wife of A. D. Matheson, agreed to accept a certain sum in settlement of a claim against land of A. D Matheson, of which she was assignee and for her inchoate right of dower in such land, wherein Mrs. Nonie McLaurin Matheson filed her petition alleging her willingness to accept the sum in conformity to the agreement, and wherein Lettie M. Ladshaw, individually and as guardian for J. J Matheson and J. K. Matheson, answered, objecting to the proposed settlement, and requested that a reference be made to take testimony and inquire into all matters put in issue by the several petitions. From the judgment, Lettie M. Ladshaw, individually and as guardian for J. J. Matheson and J. K. Matheson, appeals.
Reversed in part.
Rogers & Ellerbe, of Bennettsville, for appellant.
Tison & Miller, Stevenson & Lindsay, H. J. Riley, J. K. Owens, and G. W. Freeman, Jr., all of Bennettsville, for respondents.
It appears from the record that the late A. J. Matheson devised unto his son, A. D. Matheson, a large plantation located in the county of Marlboro, known as "Louden," and also a valuable residence situate in the town of Bennettsville. The devise of the plantation to A. D. Matheson was made subject to his assuming and carrying out a contract which the testator had made with the Board of Missions of the Presbyterian Church in the United States, wherein he agreed to pay this board the sum of $1,200 yearly for a period of twenty years, beginning April 1, 1918. In A. J. Matheson's will it was provided that A. D. Matheson should pay upon the contract whatever balance remained unpaid at testator's death, as the same fell due, and this obligation was made a charge and lien upon Louden Plantation. The annual payments were made by A. D. Matheson for several years, but, becoming financially embarrassed, and unable to meet further payments, it seems that he obtained a release from the Board of Missions, and in winding up the transaction the Board of Missions assigned the contract, together with the rights under it and under the will of the testator providing for its payment, unto Mrs. Nonie McLaurin Matheson, the wife of A. D. Matheson, as trustee for herself and her two children.
On October 10, 1931, A. D. Matheson, being insolvent, made an assignment for the benefit of his creditors, and conveyed by deed all of his property, both real and personal, to James N. Drake, as trustee. This assignment was usual in form, and included among its provisions a reservation and exception unto the grantor of his homestead exemption. The deed did not carry the renunciation of dower of his wife, Mrs. Nonie McLaurin Matheson.
Both A. D. Matheson and his wife, Nonie McLaurin Matheson, are now living.
We also gather from the record that following the execution and delivery of the deed of assignment for the benefit of creditors, James N. Drake, as trustee thereunder, on the 17th day of December, 1931, commenced in the court of common pleas for Marlboro county a general creditor's suit, in which he brought in all proper parties, and in which he sought the direction of the court in the orderly administration and distribution of the property. The court thereupon passed an order, enjoining creditors from suing, requiring the filing and establishment of claims in the cause, and providing for the judicial administration of the trust.
To this end the entire cause was referred to J. E. Leppard, Esq., as referee, including the determination of the rights of Mrs. Nonie McLaurin Matheson, as trustee under the assignment of the contract to her by the Board of Missions of the Presbyterian Church, which is in direct issue. But it does not appear that any reference has yet been held before the referee.
The issues involved in this appeal arose in the course of the administration of the trust estate, and is an offshoot therefrom.
In this proceeding, James N. Drake, by his petition to the court, sets forth that the real estate herein referred to constitutes the main asset conveyed to him by A. D. Matheson for the benefit of creditors; that a claim has been filed with him by Mrs. Matheson, as trustee for herself and her two children under the written assignment to her of the contract, to which reference has been made, but that this claim is in litigation, having been denied by him and by various creditors. He further alleged that, financial conditions having improved, he and the creditors' committee, acting with him, have reached the conclusion that it is now desirable and expedient to sell the real estate and convert the same into money, but that it would be disadvantageous to offer the property for sale pending the adjudication of this claim of Mrs. Matheson, and for the further reason that the inchoate right of dower therein is outstanding in her; that, in order that the real estate might be sold advantageously, free of this claim and the contingent right, it is stated that Mrs. Matheson has agreed with the assignee and creditors' committee to renounce her dower and release the estate from any rights she may have as trustee under the instrument above recited, for a consideration of $5,850, the same to be paid out of the proceeds of the lands when sold. It is alleged by Mr. Drake that in his opinion and in the opinion of the creditors' committee this would be a fair settlement; and by his petition he seeks confirmation and sanction of this agreement by the court.
Mrs. Nonie McLaurin Matheson, in her petition in this proceeding, sets forth the matters and things which we have already recited, and alleges her willingness to accept the sum of $5,850, in settlement of the church claim and for her inchoate right of dower.
The appellant, Lettie M....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holly Hill Lumber Co. v. McCoy
...represents the value of the property. This was the rule followed by the Circuit Court in the present case. In other cases, such as Ladshaw v. Drake, supra, the rule for computing the value the dower right is stated as follows: "The correct rule of computation is to ascertain the present val......
-
Holly Hill Lumber Co. v. McCoy
...upon the record which included the respective ages of the couple. They are so near the same that the rule of our former decision of Ladshaw v. Drake, supra, result in an evaluation of the present, inchoate right at a negligible sum, less than $100, so it would be patently inequitable in thi......