Tucker v. Weathersbee, (No. 9017.)

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtGAGE
Citation82 S.E. 638,98 S.C. 402
Docket Number(No. 9017.)
Decision Date13 August 1914
PartiesTUCKER et al. v. WEATHERSBEE et al.

82 S.E. 638
(98 S.C. 402)

TUCKER et al.
v.
WEATHERSBEE et al.

(No. 9017.)

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Aug. 13, 1914.


Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Barnwell County; T. H. Spain, Judge.

Action by George H. Tucker and others against R. A. Weathersbee and another. From a decree in favor of defendants, complainants appeal. Affirmed.

The following is the decree of the trial court:

This action came on to be tried before me at the regular spring term at Barnwell, upon the report of the master, Mr. O'Bannon, which was simply a report of the testimony upon the order of reference to take the testimony; and by consent of counsel the cause was marked heard and to be argued at Aiken. Said cause was heard at Aiken upon said report, and the testimony, oral and documentary, reported by the master, and, upon full argument by counsel representing the parties to the action, I have carefully considered the case, which is interesting, and important to all parties concerned.

Succinctly stated, the pleadings developed an action brought by the owners of judgments, as plaintiffs, against one of the defendants, R. A. Weathersbee, to be set aside as fraudulent, under the Statute of Elizabeth, as recognized at common law, two deeds one made by R. A. Weathersbee, a husband, to his codefendant, E. E. Weathersbee, his wife, on November 5, 1894, said deed conveying what is called the Jack Ashley lot, and another deed made to the wife, not by the husband, but by F. N. K. Bailey, on October 24, 189(5. and conveying what is called the "hotel lot." Both of these lots are in the town of Williston, on the line of the Southern Railway between Augusta and Charleston, in the county of Barnwell, a town of several hundred inhabitants. The charge as to both lots is that these conveyances were

[82 S.E. 639]

fraudulent, in that they were made to delay, hinder, and defeat the creditors of R. A. Weathersbee; and as to the hotel lot, that while the deed was made by a stranger to the wife, the purchase money was paid by the husband, and it is claimed that a resulting trust arose to the husband, and that the property should be declared the property of the husband, and subject to the judgment of the plaintiffs and such other creditors of the husband who should come in and contribute to the expense of the proceedings. It seems that no other creditors have come in and contributed to the expenses of the proceedings. It seems that no other creditors have come in, and that the estate of Sloan, the assignee of the Fertilizer Company, and Malsby, are the only creditors of the husband who are pushing the contention. The answer of the defendant E. E. Weathersbee, the wife, denies the fraud charged, sets up the strict statute of limitations of ten years as to both tracts, and claims the same by adverse possession, and also pleads the six years statute as to the alleged fraud.

As to the conveyances from Bailey to the wife of the hotel lot, dated October 24, 1896, there is not a tittle of proof that any money of the husband went to pay the consideration of said deed, but there is ample and complete proof that the consideration was paid by the wife, named as the grantee in the deed, with money loaned to her by her brother, C. J. Owens, and that the improvements, amounting to some $5,000, placed thereon from time to time, were made by her, in part by money borrowed and in part by money made by her own thrift and energy as a hotel keeper. There is no testimony to show that this deed was made to delay, hinder, and defeat the creditors of R. A. Weathersbee; and I find as a matter of fact that the deed from Bailey to the wife conveyed to her, free from fraud, a fee-simple title, and that said property is hers free and discharged from any claims of any of the creditors of the husband, R. A. Weathersbee. There could be no resulting trust unless it was shown by clear evidence that the purchase price was paid by the husband; he being the common debtor of the creditors pressing this controversy.

As to the conveyance from the husband to the wife of the Jack Ashley lot, on November 5, 1894, I find as a matter of fact that said conveyance was made at a full, fair, and adequate price. This is shown by the testimony of the witnesses of the defendant, and there is no testimony to the contrary on behalf of the plaintiffs. I further find that at the time this conveyance was made the testimony does not disclose the fact that any suits were threatened against the husband or the partnership of A. J. Weathersbee & Son in which he was concerned, or that any suits were pending against him, though it seems that afterwards judgment was obtained against him. I further find that the purchase price was paid by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 practice notes
  • Gardner v. Kirven, No. 14486.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 18, 1937
    ...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; Tucker v. Weathersbee, 98 S.C. 402, 406, 82 S.E. 638; Gray v. Collins, 139 Ga. 776, 78 S.E. 127, 128, 129; Younger v. Massey, 39 S.C. 115, 17 S.E. 711; Barrett & Co. v. Still, 1......
  • Ellis v. Southern Ry. Co., No. 36839
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • October 24, 1957
    ...from the cases of Weinkle & Sons v. Brunswick & Western R. Co., 107 Ga. 367, 33 S.E. 471 and Henderson v. State, 210 Ga. 680, 683, 82 S.E. 638, cited by counsel for the plaintiff in error as authority for excluding the testimony as not part of the res gestae, he arrived on the scene within ......
  • Prosser v. Chapman, No. 2235.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • October 21, 1924
    ...v. Lewis, 34 S. C. 1, 6, 7, 12 S. E. 560; Miller v. Wroton, 82 S. C. 97, 63 S. E. 62, 449; Tucker v. Weathersbee, 98 S. C. 403, 406, 82 S. E. 638; Betts & Co. v. Richardson, 112 S. C. 279, 283, 99 S. E. 815; 27 C. J. Coming to the assignment of errors as to the invalidity of the deed becaus......
  • Matthews v. Boise City National Bank
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • February 24, 1925
    ...claim against the property. (Ford Lumber & Mfg. Co. v. Curd, 150 Ky. 738, 150 S.W. 991, 43 L. R. A., N. S., 685; Tucker v. Weathersbee, 98 S.C. 402, 82 S.E. 638; Humbird Lumber Co. v. Doran, 24 Idaho 507, 135 P. 66.) "Fraud is never presumed, but must be established by clear and convincing ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 cases
  • Gardner v. Kirven, No. 14486.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 18, 1937
    ...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; Tucker v. Weathersbee, 98 S.C. 402, 406, 82 S.E. 638; Gray v. Collins, 139 Ga. 776, 78 S.E. 127, 128, 129; Younger v. Massey, 39 S.C. 115, 17 S.E. 711; Barrett & Co. v. Still, 1......
  • Ellis v. Southern Ry. Co., No. 36839
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • October 24, 1957
    ...from the cases of Weinkle & Sons v. Brunswick & Western R. Co., 107 Ga. 367, 33 S.E. 471 and Henderson v. State, 210 Ga. 680, 683, 82 S.E. 638, cited by counsel for the plaintiff in error as authority for excluding the testimony as not part of the res gestae, he arrived on the scene within ......
  • Prosser v. Chapman, No. 2235.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • October 21, 1924
    ...v. Lewis, 34 S. C. 1, 6, 7, 12 S. E. 560; Miller v. Wroton, 82 S. C. 97, 63 S. E. 62, 449; Tucker v. Weathersbee, 98 S. C. 403, 406, 82 S. E. 638; Betts & Co. v. Richardson, 112 S. C. 279, 283, 99 S. E. 815; 27 C. J. Coming to the assignment of errors as to the invalidity of the deed becaus......
  • Matthews v. Boise City National Bank
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • February 24, 1925
    ...claim against the property. (Ford Lumber & Mfg. Co. v. Curd, 150 Ky. 738, 150 S.W. 991, 43 L. R. A., N. S., 685; Tucker v. Weathersbee, 98 S.C. 402, 82 S.E. 638; Humbird Lumber Co. v. Doran, 24 Idaho 507, 135 P. 66.) "Fraud is never presumed, but must be established by clear and convincing ......
  • 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