Rutledge v. Tunno
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | GARY |
| Citation | 41 S.E. 308,63 S.C. 205 |
| Decision Date | 25 March 1902 |
| Parties | RUTLEDGE v. TUNNO et al. |
41 S.E. 308
63 S.C. 205
RUTLEDGE
v.
TUNNO et al.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
March 25, 1902.
APPEALABLE ORDER—FRENCH SPOLIATION CLAIMS—INTERVENTION.
1. An order refusing a petition to be made a party to a cause is appealable.
2. Act Cong. March 3, 1891, making appropriations to pay French spoliation claims, provides that the awards shall be made on behalf of the next of kin. Held, that the personal representative of a deceased member of a firm to which the government has paid a French spoliation claim is not a proper or necessary party to proceedings by the personal representative of the surviving partner for instructions as to the distribution of the fund, unless he alleged in his petition that there are next of kin of his intestate entitled to take under the act.
Appeal from common pleas circuit court of Charleston county; Benet Judge.
Action by B. H. Rutledge against M. R. Tunno and others. John Johnson, administrator of James Cox, petitioned to be permitted to intervene. From an order refusing the same, petitioner appeals. Affirmed.
Huger Fitzsimons, for appellant.
A. R. Young, Benj. H. Rutledge, and T. Moultrie Mordecai, for appellees.
GARY, A. J. This Is an appeal from an order refusing the petition of the administrator with the will annexed of James Cox, deceased, to be made a party to an action brought by the administrator cum testamento annexo of the surviving partner of the firm of Tunno & Cox, for instruction as to the proper disposition of a fund paid to him. The fund amounted to $21,167.80, and was in payment of an award upon a French spoliation claim. Previously the United States had filed a petition asking to be made a party defendant, upon the ground that, inasmuch as there were no heirs at law or next of kin of James Cox living, the government was entitled to recover and receive back all such funds paid over by it to B. H. Rutledge, as administrator, etc., as were allowed and paid over to him as the supposed representative of the next of kin of James Cox, and by an order of the court the United States was allowed to intervene, and became
[41 S.E. 309]a party defendant The order refusing the petition of the administrator of James Cox to be made a party to the action is as follows: "This cause comes up before me on a motion made by the petitioner, John Johnson, administrator with the will annexed of James Cox, to intervene in the cause, with leave to plead, answer, or demur. The motion is resisted by the plaintiff, B. H. Rutledge, administrator de bonis non cum testamento annexo of Adam Tuuno, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hill
...the action. See Mid-State Distributors, Inc. v. Century Importers, Inc., --- S.C. ----, 426 S.E.2d 777 (1993); Ex parte Johnson, 63 S.C. 205, 41 S.E. 308 (1902). Therefore, the orders are not appealable under § 14-3-330. 1 Accordingly, we grant respondents' motion and dismiss the State's ap......
-
Cobb v. Maccaro, No. 1876
...an order must not only involve a right, but it must also "prevent[ ] a judgment from which an appeal might be taken." Ex parte Johnson, 63 S.C. 205, 208, 41 S.E. 308, 309 (1902) (this case has been renamed in the West Reporter, See Rutledge v. Tunno ); See also S.C.Code Ann. § 14-3-330(2)(a......
-
Hill v. Alfalfa Seed & Lumber Co., Civil 2961
...as Hill was concerned; it prevented a judgment for or against him from which an appeal could have been prosecuted. In Rutledge v. Tunno, 63 S.C. 205, 41 S.E. 308, under a statutory provision almost identical with our subdivision 5, supra, the court upheld the right of an appeal from an orde......
-
Rutledge v. Tunno
...began, asking to be made a party to this suit, which petition was refused by the Supreme Court of this state. See Ex parte Johnson, 63 S. C. 205, 41 S. E. 308. "Under this state of facts it is claimed by the Treasury Department that the Cox share, which I find to be one-half of the net fund......
-
State v. Hill
...the action. See Mid-State Distributors, Inc. v. Century Importers, Inc., --- S.C. ----, 426 S.E.2d 777 (1993); Ex parte Johnson, 63 S.C. 205, 41 S.E. 308 (1902). Therefore, the orders are not appealable under § 14-3-330. 1 Accordingly, we grant respondents' motion and dismiss the State's ap......
-
Cobb v. Maccaro, No. 1876
...an order must not only involve a right, but it must also "prevent[ ] a judgment from which an appeal might be taken." Ex parte Johnson, 63 S.C. 205, 208, 41 S.E. 308, 309 (1902) (this case has been renamed in the West Reporter, See Rutledge v. Tunno ); See also S.C.Code Ann. § 14-3-330(2)(a......
-
Hill v. Alfalfa Seed & Lumber Co., Civil 2961
...as Hill was concerned; it prevented a judgment for or against him from which an appeal could have been prosecuted. In Rutledge v. Tunno, 63 S.C. 205, 41 S.E. 308, under a statutory provision almost identical with our subdivision 5, supra, the court upheld the right of an appeal from an orde......
-
Rutledge v. Tunno
...began, asking to be made a party to this suit, which petition was refused by the Supreme Court of this state. See Ex parte Johnson, 63 S. C. 205, 41 S. E. 308. "Under this state of facts it is claimed by the Treasury Department that the Cox share, which I find to be one-half of the net fund......