Marshall v. Creel
| Citation | 22 S.E. 597,44 S.C. 484 |
| Parties | MARSHALL et al. v. CREEL. |
| Decision Date | 03 September 1895 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
Review on Appeal — Findings by Court —Assignments of Error—Foreclosure—Decree.
1. Findings of fact by the court will not be disturbed unless without evidence to sustain them, or clearly against its weight
2. An exception requiring a review of all the evidence is too general to be considered.
3. The provision in a judgment decreeing foreclosure of a mortgage on land directing the master, if plaintiff became the purchaser, to make title to him "on payment of the costs and disbursements, " is proper.
Appeal from common pleas circuit court of Colleton county; Ernest Gary, Judge.
Action by S. R. Marshall & Co., assignees, against Allen Creel, for foreclosure of a mort gage. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
W. B. Gruber, for appellant.
F. G. Behre, for respondents.
The plaintiffs brought this action for the foreclosure of a mortgage of real estate, given to secure the payment of a bond conditioned for the payment of the sum of $176, which was given by defendant to one James S. Simmons, and by him assigned to one S. G. Pierce, and by said Pierce to the plaintiffs. The only defense relied upon was payment, not to plaintiffs, but to the first assignee, Pierce. The testimony was taken by the master under an order of the court, and by him reported to the court, and upon the testimony so taken the case was heard by his honor Judge Ernest Gary, who rendered his decree finding that there was due on the bond by the defendant the sum of $216, and accordingly he rendered judgment of foreclosure. From that judgment defendant appeals, upon the following grounds: "(1) For that the presiding judge was in error in not holding that the mortgage debt had been paid in full; (2) for that the presiding judge was in error in finding that there was $216 due on the bond and mortgage sued on; (3) for that the presiding judge was in error in not dismissing the plaintiffs' action, and ordering the bond and mortgage sued on canceled; (4) that the presiding judge was in error in adjudging and decreeing 'that should the plaintiffs, or either or any of them, become the purchaser, that the master do make title to him or them upon the payment of the costs and disbursements.' "
It is very manifest that the first three grounds are entirely too general to call for any consideration at the hands of this court. They might, for all practical purposes, be embraced...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. Regula, 20163
...and retry the whole case is too general to be considered. Such is the vice of the single exception advanced in this case. Marshall v. Creel, 44 S.C. 484, 22 S.E. 597; Weatherly v. Covington, 51 S.C. 55, 28 S.E. 1; Elkins v. South Carolina & Georgia R.R. Co., 59 S.C. 1, 37 S.E. 20; Solley v.......
-
Solley v. Weaver, 18441
...113 S.E.2d 756. It has been held that an exception requiring a review of all the evidence is too general to be considered. Marshall v. Creel, 44 S.C. 484, 22 S.E. 597; Weatherly v. Covington, 51 S.C. 55, 28 S.E. 1; Elkins v. South Carolina & G. R. R. Co., 59 S.c. 1, 37 S.E. 20. In the Elkin......
-
Weatiierby v. Covengton
...Cureton v. Stokes, 20 S. C. 583; Talbott v. Padgett, 30 S. C. 167, 8 S. E. 845; Sims v. Jones, 43 S. C. 99, 20 S. E. 905; Marshall v. Creel, 44 S. C. 485, 22 S. E. 597, and many other cases. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed. McIVER, C. J. I concur in the conclusion that the exc......
-
Elkins v. South Carolina & G.R. Co.
...... Covington, 51 S.C. 55, 28 S.E. 1, cited by counsel for. respondent, conclusively settles this question. As was. indicated in Marshall v. Creel, 44 S.C. 485, 22 S.E. 597, and expressly suggested in the separate opinion in. Weatherly v. Covington, supra, a good test whether an. ......