Va.-carolina Chem. Co v. Hunter

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtHYDRICK
Citation94 S.C. 65,77 S.E. 751
PartiesVIRGINIA-CAROLINA CHEMICAL CO. v. HUNTER et al.
Decision Date17 March 1913

77 S.E. 751
94 S.C. 65

VIRGINIA-CAROLINA CHEMICAL CO.
v.
HUNTER et al.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

March 17, 1913.


1. Fraudulent Conveyances (§§ 304, 305*) —Receivers — Continuance of Receivership.

On it being found, in an action by a creditor of defendant on behalf of himself and all other creditors to set aside as fraudulent mortgages given by him, that he is insolvent, and that certain of the mortgages are fraudulent, the receivership and the injunction against creditors prosecuting their claims, except in such action, previously ordered therein, are properly continued.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Fraudulent Conveyances, Cent. Dig. §§ 910-919; Dec. Dig. §§ 304, 305.*]

2. Fraudulent Conveyances (§ 295*) — Action to Set Aside—Evidence.

Mortgages are properly decreed to be fraud ulent; a prima facie case being made agains. their bona fides, and there being no exculpatory

[77 S.E. 752]

and explanatory evidence on the part of defendants.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Fraudulent Conveyances, Cent. Dig. §§ 867-875; Dec. Dig. § 295.2-*]

3. Fraudulent Conveyances (§ 312*)—Receivership—Requiring Proof of Claim. Though in a suit by a creditor of H., on behalf of himself and all other creditors, to set aside mortgages as fraudulent, certain of them are adjudged valid, it is proper to require the holders of them to prove them, in the sense of showing how much is due on them, especially those overdue when the action was begun; an order appointing a receiver and enjoining creditors prosecuting their claims, except in such action, having therein been made, and continued in force.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Fraudulent Conveyances, Cent. Dig. §§ 963-965, 967; Dec. Dig. § 312.*]

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Laurens County; G. W. Gage, Judge.

"To be officially reported."

Action by the Virginia-Carolina Chemical Company against G. Wash Hunter and others. From an adverse judgment, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

See, also, 84 S. C. 214, 66 S. E. 177.

Fred H. Dominick, of Newberry, for appellants.

Grier & Park, of Greenwood, and Dial & Todd, of Laurens, for respondent.

HYDRICK, J. The plaintiff commenced this action on December 14, 1908, in behalf of itself and all other creditors of the defendant Hunter to set aside for fraud certain mortgages given by Hunter to his sister, the defendant Mrs. Evans, as follows: (1) One dated October 18, 1907, and recorded October 25, 1907, over 625 acres, to secure his note for $8,000 of same date, due one day after date. (2) One dated November 19, 1907, over 170 acres, to secure his note for $2,000 of same date, due one day after date. This mortgage was not recorded until November 10, 1908. (3) One dated November 6, 1908, over 800 acres, being the two tracts covered by mortgages numbered 1 and 2, which was all the land owned by Hunter to secure his note for $1,250. This mortgage was also recorded November 10, 1908. (4) One covering his personal property, dated November 19, 1907. Plaintiff also sought to avoid a mortgage given to the defendant Cole L Blease for $1,000, on the ground that it was an unlawful preference in violation of the assignment act. On motion of plaintiff, the court passed an order appointing a receiver of Hunter's property, and enjoining creditors from prosecuting their claims, except in this action. That order was affirmed by this court. 84 S. C. 214, 66 S. E.. 177. The case was then referred to Hon. Frank B. Gary, as special referee, to hear and decide all issues and report his findings and conclusions. In a report showing careful consideration of the law and evidence he reached the conclusion that all the mort gages given by Hunter to Mrs. Evans, ex cept the one for $8,000, were fraudulent and void, and that the mortgage of the defendant Blease was valid. The defendants alone excepted to his report. Therefore the validity of the $8,000 mortgage to Mrs. Evans and the mortgage to the defendant Blease is conclusively established, and that part of the referee's report which disposes of the issues as to those mortgages is of no further consequence, and for that reason it is omitted. That part of the report which deals with the mortgages found to be fraudulent reads as follows:

"Hunter contracted the debts with the plaintiff in April, 1908, and July 23, 1908; both notes were made payable November 15, 1908. In 1908 Hunter planted a large crop, and in April, 1908, sold 18 bales of cotton from the crop of 1907. On November 13th Hunter sold 60 bales of cotton, of the average weight of from 425 to 450 pounds. This cotton brought about 12 1/2 cents per pound, making a total for this cotton of $3,100. Seven days before he sold this cotton he claims to have given Mrs. Evans the mortgage for $1,250. Three days before he sold his cotton the $2,000 mortgage to his sister and the $1,250 mortgage to his sister were put on record. Less than two weeks after selling the 60 bales of cotton the defendant Hunter wrote...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • Gardner v. Kirven, No. 14486.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 18, 1937
    ...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; Tucker v. Weathersbee, 98 S.C. 402, 406, 82 S.E. 638; Gray v. Collins,......
  • Cantey v. Edward L. Summersett & Co. Inc, (No. 12593.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • February 14, 1929
    ...Rep. 742; Braffman v. Glover, 35 S. C. 431, 14 S. E, 935; Younger v. Massey, 39 S. C. 115, 17 S. E. 711; Chem. Co. v. Hunter, 94 S. C. 68, 77 S. E. 751. I find from the evidence that the moneys used in the formation of the corporation of Edw. L. Summersett & Co., and in the acquirement of t......
  • Prosser v. Chapman, No. 2235.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • October 21, 1924
    ...14 S. E. 935; Du Rant v. Du Rant, 36 S. C. 49, 58, 14 S. E. 929; Porter v. Stricker, 44 S. C. 183, 21 S. E. 635; Chemical Co. v. Hunter, 94 S. C. 65, 70, 77 S. E. 751; Tucker v. Weathersbee, supra, 98 S. C. 402, 406, 82 S. E. 638; Hursey v. Lane (C. C. A. 4th Cir.) 238 F. 913, 152 C. C. A. ......
  • Robbins v. Dinkins, No.15776.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • October 31, 1945
    ...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; Tucker v. Weathersbee, 98 S.C. 402, 406, 82 S.E. 638; Gray v.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • Gardner v. Kirven, No. 14486.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 18, 1937
    ...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; Tucker v. Weathersbee, 98 S.C. 402, 406, 82 S.E. 638; Gray v. Collins,......
  • Cantey v. Edward L. Summersett & Co. Inc, (No. 12593.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • February 14, 1929
    ...Rep. 742; Braffman v. Glover, 35 S. C. 431, 14 S. E, 935; Younger v. Massey, 39 S. C. 115, 17 S. E. 711; Chem. Co. v. Hunter, 94 S. C. 68, 77 S. E. 751. I find from the evidence that the moneys used in the formation of the corporation of Edw. L. Summersett & Co., and in the acquirement of t......
  • Prosser v. Chapman, No. 2235.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • October 21, 1924
    ...14 S. E. 935; Du Rant v. Du Rant, 36 S. C. 49, 58, 14 S. E. 929; Porter v. Stricker, 44 S. C. 183, 21 S. E. 635; Chemical Co. v. Hunter, 94 S. C. 65, 70, 77 S. E. 751; Tucker v. Weathersbee, supra, 98 S. C. 402, 406, 82 S. E. 638; Hursey v. Lane (C. C. A. 4th Cir.) 238 F. 913, 152 C. C. A. ......
  • Robbins v. Dinkins, No.15776.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • October 31, 1945
    ...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; Tucker v. Weathersbee, 98 S.C. 402, 406, 82 S.E. 638; Gray v.......
  • 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