Superior Auto. Ins. Co. v. Maners, No. 19697

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
Citation261 S.C. 257,199 S.E.2d 719
PartiesSUPERIOR AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent, v. Harvey W. MANERS et al., Defendants, of whom Ford Motor Credit Company is, Appellant.
Docket NumberNo. 19697
Decision Date25 September 1973

Page 719

199 S.E.2d 719
261 S.C. 257
SUPERIOR AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent,
v.
Harvey W. MANERS et al., Defendants, of whom Ford Motor
Credit Company is, Appellant.
No. 19697.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Sept. 25, 1973.

[261 S.C. 258]

Page 720

Spratt & Spratt, York, and Robinson, McFadden, Moore & Pope, Columbia, for appellant.

[261 S.C. 259] George A. Gill, Jr., and John C. Hayes, Rock Hill, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

This appeal arises out of a foreclosure action wherein the cardinal issue is whether the respondent Superior has a valid mortgage lien upon certain real property superior to a judgment lien hold by appellant Ford. After full consideration of the record and briefs of counsel, we are of the opinion that the decree of the circuit court, which in pertinent part will be published herewith, soundly and correctly disposed of all issues in the cause. Accordingly, the judgment of the lower court is

Affirmed.

ORDER OF JUDGE HAYES

This matter comes before the Court upon exceptions to the Special Referee's Report. Such report is reversed in the particulars set forth herein and affirmed in all other respects.

These actions are for the foreclosure of certain real estate mortgages given by Harvey W. Maners and Mazle L. [261 S.C. 260] Maners (Maners) to First Federal Savings & Loan Association of Rock Hill (First Federal) and Superior Automobile Insurance Company (Superior), and were consolidated for trial by consent of the parties.

There was no exception to the finding of the Special Referee as to the priority of the lien of the First Federal mortgage and, pursuant to a consent order, the property covered by that mortgage, referred to in the proceedings as 'Milton Avenue' was sold by the Special Referee. The proceeds of the sale were sufficient to substantially satisfy the First Federal mortgage and the costs with no surplus for application to either the Superior mortgage or to the Ford judgment. This sale, which has been confirmed by the Court, extinguished

Page 721

both the liens of Superior and Ford in that property and also served to terminate the First Federal foreclosure. Thus, only the question of priorities of the liens of Superior and Ford as to the Saluda Street property need be determined.
FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On May 19, 1961, Maners made, executed and delivered to Superior their promissory note in the sum of Forty-Two Thousand and no/100 ($42,000.00) Dollars, with interest at the rate of six (6%) per cent per annum payable in one hundred twenty (120) monthly installments of Four Hundred Sixty-Six and 31/100 ($466.31) Dollars each. As security for said note, Maners gave to Superior a mortgage on real estate and personal property situated on or near Saluda Street in Rock Hill and on real estate situated on Milton Avenue in Rock Hill, the latter being the residence of Maners, such mortgage was duly recorded on May 22, 1961.

2. On July 29, 1964, Maners made, executed and delivered to Superior their promissory note in the sum of Seven Thousand and no/100 ($7,000.00) Dollars with interest at the rate of six (6%) per cent to be repayable upon demand, with interest payable monthly in advance. This note recited [261 S.C. 261] that it was secured by a mortgage on real estate and personal property in York County which, inferably, referred to the mortgage given May 19, 1961, to secure the note given that date.

3. On October 23, 1967 Ford filed a judgment against Maners.

4. On December 30, 1967, Maners and Superior entered into a 'Modification Agreement' reciting the May 19, 1961 note, stating that the indebtedness had been reduced to Twenty-Eight Thousand and no/100 ($28,000.00) Dollars and extending the period for repayment for fifteen (15) years at Two Hundred Thirty-Six and 28/100 ($236.28) Dollars per month commencing on February 5, 1968; said Agreement containing the following language:

'Whereas, Superior Automobile Insurance Company, the holder of said note, has agreed to modify the payment terms of said note, leaving in effect all other features of the note and the mortgage which was entered into by way of security for said note;'

and further:

'. . . the undersigned agree that this is a modification of the payments only, with all other features of the note and mortgage to remain as originally entered into.'

5. On the date of the execution of the 'Modifying Agreement' the balance due on the May 19, 1961, Superior note was Twenty Thousand Two Hundred Seventeen and 76/100 ($20,217.76) Dollars, and the balance due on the July 29, 1964, Superior note was in excess of Seven...

To continue reading

Request your trial
47 practice notes
  • Davis v. Davis, No. 4188.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • December 21, 2006
    ...320 S.C. 331, 465 S.E.2d 121 (Ct.App.1995); Ellis v. Taylor, 316 S.C. 245, 449 S.E.2d 487 (1994); Superior Auto. Ins. Co. v. Maners, 261 S.C. 257, 199 S.E.2d 719 On the other hand, when an agreement is susceptible of more than one interpretation, it is ambiguous and the court should seek to......
  • Dent v. Beazer Materials and Services, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:89-2851-8.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • December 28, 1995
    ...capable of legal construction, the language alone determines the force and effect of the instrument. Superior Auto. Ins. Co. v. Maners, 261 S.C. 257, 199 S.E.2d 719 In this case, the Lease indemnity provision provided that the lessee would hold the lessor harmless for any claim made against......
  • Moore v. Weinberg, No. 4209.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • February 20, 2007
    ...unless both parties so intend. Id. The party asserting a novation has the burden of proving it. Superior Auto. Ins. Co. v. Maners, 261 S.C. 257, 199 S.E.2d 719 (1973). "The circumstances attending the transaction alleged to be a novation must show the intention to substitute a new obligatio......
  • Ward v. West Oil Co., Inc., No. 4389.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • May 12, 2008
    ...Court must first look at the language of the contract to determine the intentions of the parties."); Superior Auto. Ins. Co. v. Maners, 261 S.C. 257, 263, 199 S.E.2d 719, 722 (1973); Jacobs v. Service Merch. Co., 297 S.C. 123, 375 S.E.2d 1 (Ct.App.1988). To discover the intention of a contr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
47 cases
  • Davis v. Davis, No. 4188.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • December 21, 2006
    ...320 S.C. 331, 465 S.E.2d 121 (Ct.App.1995); Ellis v. Taylor, 316 S.C. 245, 449 S.E.2d 487 (1994); Superior Auto. Ins. Co. v. Maners, 261 S.C. 257, 199 S.E.2d 719 On the other hand, when an agreement is susceptible of more than one interpretation, it is ambiguous and the court should seek to......
  • Dent v. Beazer Materials and Services, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:89-2851-8.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • December 28, 1995
    ...capable of legal construction, the language alone determines the force and effect of the instrument. Superior Auto. Ins. Co. v. Maners, 261 S.C. 257, 199 S.E.2d 719 In this case, the Lease indemnity provision provided that the lessee would hold the lessor harmless for any claim made against......
  • Moore v. Weinberg, No. 4209.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • February 20, 2007
    ...unless both parties so intend. Id. The party asserting a novation has the burden of proving it. Superior Auto. Ins. Co. v. Maners, 261 S.C. 257, 199 S.E.2d 719 (1973). "The circumstances attending the transaction alleged to be a novation must show the intention to substitute a new obligatio......
  • Ward v. West Oil Co., Inc., No. 4389.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • May 12, 2008
    ...Court must first look at the language of the contract to determine the intentions of the parties."); Superior Auto. Ins. Co. v. Maners, 261 S.C. 257, 263, 199 S.E.2d 719, 722 (1973); Jacobs v. Service Merch. Co., 297 S.C. 123, 375 S.E.2d 1 (Ct.App.1988). To discover the intention of a contr......
  • 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