Orphanage v. Strange, (No. 12570.)

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtCOTHRAN
Citation146 S.E. 414
PartiesEPWORTH ORPHANAGE. v. STRANGE et al. (two cases).
Decision Date30 January 1929
Docket Number(No. 12570.)

146 S.E. 414

EPWORTH ORPHANAGE.
v.
STRANGE et al. (two cases).

(No. 12570.)

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Jan. 30, 1929.


[146 S.E. 414]

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Allendale County; T. J. Mauldin, Judge.

Actions by the Epworth Orphanage against Mrs. M. P. Strange, Mrs. Olivia S. Palmer, and others, and against Mrs. M. F. Strange, Mrs. Alma S. Farmer, and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Charlton Du Rant, of Manning, and C. Birnie Johnson, of Allendale, for appellant.

James M. Patterson, of Allendale, for respondents.

COTHRAN, J. These two actions were tried together; the complaints and answers are the same, with the exception of the names of the defendants and descriptions of the properties involved.

The first was brought to set aside conveyances from Mrs. M. F. Strange, to her daughter Olivia S. Palmer, of two certain pieces of real estate: (1) A tract of land containing 99 acres, and (2) a tract of land containing 259 acres, dated September 7, 1922, the expressed consideration of the first being $——, and of the second $——, as void under the Statute of Elizabeth.

The second was brought to set aside conveyances from Mrs. M. F. Strange, to her daughter Alma S. Farmer, of two certain pieces of real estate: (1) A lot containing one acre in the town of Allendale, and (2) a tract of land containing 122 acres, dated September 7, 1922, the expressed consideration of the first being $6,000 and of the second $5,000, as void under the Statute of Elizabeth.

The allegation in each complaint was that the deeds referred to were without consideration and were made to hinder, delay, and de fraud the plaintiff and other creditors of their lawful debts.

The allegations in each answer, on the part of the defendants Mrs. Strange, Mrs. Palmer, and Mrs. Farmer, were to the following effect: Mrs. Strange alleged that the sales to her daughters were made bona fide, for value, for the purpose of raising money with which to margin cotton which she had bought and was holding for better prices; she denied the allegations of fraud. Mrs. Palmer and Mrs. Farmer, in separate answers, alleged: "That on or about the 7th day of September, 1922, her mother and codefendant, Mrs. M. F. Strange, being pressed for money attempted to sell her property for cash, and that this defendant and her sister, Mrs. Olive S. Palmer, realizing that the attempted sale was of the entire property held by their mother, including their home, offered to purchase from her the said property and divide the same between them. That their offer was accepted and separate deeds made to each of them and for the consideration named in the said deeds which was paid by this defendant for her part, " and her sister, Mrs. Olive S. Palmer, on her part. They also denied the allegations of fraud.

The cases were referred by consent to W. D. Connor, Esq., as special master, to hear and determine all issues of law and fact. He filed a report (which is not set forth in the transcript), finding that the deeds were for a valid consideration and not in fraud of creditors, and recommended that the complaints be dismissed.

The cases were then heard by his honor, Judge Mauldin, at October term, 1926, upon exceptions by plaintiff to the report of the special master. He filed a decree (not dated in the transcript), confirming the report of the special master in all respects and dismissing the complaints. From this decree the plaintiff has appealed.

It appears that on January 29, 1920, Mrs. Strange...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 practice notes
  • Gardner v. Kirven, No. 14486.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 18, 1937
    ...and the bona fides of the transaction by clear and convincing testimony. Epworth Orphanage v. Strange, 148 S.C. 500, 503, 504, 146 S.E. 414 (1), and cases cited; Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. Hunter, 94 S.C. 65, 68, 69, 77 S.E. 751; Strickland v. Jones, 131 Ga. 409, 62 S.E. 322, 323, 32......
  • PCS Nitrogen, Inc. v. Ross Dev. Corp., Case No. 2:09–cv–03171–MBS.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • August 21, 2015
    ...v. Kirven, 184 S.C. 37, 191 S.E. 814 (1937) (parent-child and husband-wife relationships); Epworth Orphanage v. Strange, 148 S.C. 500, 146 S.E. 414 (1929) (parent-child relationship); S. Carolina Nat'l Bank v. Halter, 293 S.C. 121, 359 S.E.2d 74 (1987) (husband-wife and parent-in-law-child-......
  • Robbins v. Dinkins, No.15776.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • October 31, 1945
    ...and the bona fides of the transaction by clear and convincing testimony. Epworth Orphanage v. Strange, 148 S.C. 500, 503, 504, 146 S.E. 414(1) and cases cited; Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. Hunter, 94 S.C. 65, 68, 69, 77 S.E. 751; Strickland v. Jones, 131 Ga. 409, 62 S.E. 322, 323, 324;......
  • Fed. Land Bank Of D.C. v. Palmer, No. 13692.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • September 15, 1933
    ...of the matters involved have been before this court in two appeals. See Epworth Orphanage v. Strange et al., (two cases) 148 S. C. 500, 146 S. E. 414, and Epworth Orphanage v. Strange et al., 158 S. C. 379, 155 S. E. 594. We refer to those decisions for much of the history of the litigation......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • Gardner v. Kirven, No. 14486.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 18, 1937
    ...and the bona fides of the transaction by clear and convincing testimony. Epworth Orphanage v. Strange, 148 S.C. 500, 503, 504, 146 S.E. 414 (1), and cases cited; Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. Hunter, 94 S.C. 65, 68, 69, 77 S.E. 751; Strickland v. Jones, 131 Ga. 409, 62 S.E. 322, 323, 32......
  • PCS Nitrogen, Inc. v. Ross Dev. Corp., Case No. 2:09–cv–03171–MBS.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • August 21, 2015
    ...v. Kirven, 184 S.C. 37, 191 S.E. 814 (1937) (parent-child and husband-wife relationships); Epworth Orphanage v. Strange, 148 S.C. 500, 146 S.E. 414 (1929) (parent-child relationship); S. Carolina Nat'l Bank v. Halter, 293 S.C. 121, 359 S.E.2d 74 (1987) (husband-wife and parent-in-law-child-......
  • Robbins v. Dinkins, No.15776.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • October 31, 1945
    ...and the bona fides of the transaction by clear and convincing testimony. Epworth Orphanage v. Strange, 148 S.C. 500, 503, 504, 146 S.E. 414(1) and cases cited; Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. Hunter, 94 S.C. 65, 68, 69, 77 S.E. 751; Strickland v. Jones, 131 Ga. 409, 62 S.E. 322, 323, 324;......
  • Fed. Land Bank Of D.C. v. Palmer, No. 13692.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • September 15, 1933
    ...of the matters involved have been before this court in two appeals. See Epworth Orphanage v. Strange et al., (two cases) 148 S. C. 500, 146 S. E. 414, and Epworth Orphanage v. Strange et al., 158 S. C. 379, 155 S. E. 594. We refer to those decisions for much of the history of the litigation......
  • 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