Watson v. Goldsmith
Decision Date | 05 September 1944 |
Docket Number | 15674. |
Citation | 31 S.E.2d 317,205 S.C. 215 |
Parties | WATSON v. GOLDSMITH. |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
B F. Martin and John C. Henry, both of Greenville, for appellant.
Mann & Arnold, of Greenville, for respondent.
Important background of this action and appeal is found in the prior proceeding for the foreclosure of five real estate mortgages commenced by H. P. McGee as trustee of the B. M. McGee trust fund and concluded by C. E. Robinson as successor trustee (after the death of H. P. McGee) against the plaintiff in the present case. Decision of appeal in the first suit is reported in 198 S.C. 396, 18 S.E.2d 215, under the title of Robinson v. Watson et al.
The complaint in the instant action against the executor of H. P. McGee was served with summons on May 7 1943, and recites at tedious length the creation and history of the B. M. McGee trust, the foreclosure action aforesaid and sets up alleged payments which it is claimed should have been credited upon the debts of plaintiff to the McGee trust which were secured by the mortgages formerly foreclosed.
With painstaking care this Court has compared and checked the alleged credits and has found from the testimony and master's report in the former action for foreclosure that the presently claimed items are identical with some of them asserted in the first action, upon which the issues were concluded against Watson upon the grounds that the alleged payments were never made or were properly credited by Mr. H. P. McGee upon obligations owing by Watson to the McGee trust estate or the several other obligations of his which H. P. McGee held in his individual or other representative capacity. The report of the Master of Greenville County, the Honorable E. Inman, in the first action, that of foreclosure against Watson, is unusually full, clear and convincing. It was confirmed by decree of the trial Judge and his decision was affirmed on appeal to this Court.
The present case is unusual in that the merits of it were considered and decided on demurrer, a course blazed by plaintiff by his fulsome references to the earlier case in his complaint and in argument. The agreed statement in the Transcript of Record for appeal contains the following:
The complaint is upon the alleged theory that H. P. McGee received the claimed payments, disallowed by the judgment in the first action, and failed to properly apply them to plaintiff's obligations held by him as trustee of the B. M. McGee trust, whereupon, it is said, he became the trustee of plaintiff and his private estate should now account for the alleged payments. For a better understanding of plaintiff's present claim, the following is quoted from his complaint in the action now before the Court:
One of the exceptions made by Watson in his appeal before, overruled by this Court, was as follows:
"Because his Honor, the Circuit Court, erred in confirming Master's Report, holding that defendant-appellant is not entitled to judgment on credits for $6,121.46, as of proper date, and disallowing same on the following claims: (1) Bruton Temple Church; (2) Prince Nesbit; (3) Moses Young; (4) Jeff Zimmerman; (5) Sam Goodjion; (6) John H. Butler; and (7) misapplication of a certain credit of $373.40 as of December 21, 1939 (?), to Isbell mortgage; whereas defendant-appellant showed conclusively that a trust relation, a fiduciary relation, existed between himself and plaintiff H. P. McGee, as Trustee of B. M. McGee estate, as to all of same, rendering it incumbent on said Trustee to account and show that he had complied with his trust relation toward defendant-appellant and had legally and properly disbursed or paid over such funds after defendant-appellant traced such funds...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
First Nat. Bank of Greenville v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
...We refer in this connection to the well considered opinion of this Court by Mr. Justice Stukes in the recent case of Watson v. Goldsmith, 205 S.C. 215, 31 S.E.2d 317. In case of Snyder v. Scott the Guaranty Company was before the Court as surety upon the official bonds of Mrs. Scott, as Jud......
-
Curtis v. DesChamps
...and W.W. DesChamps' children owned the remainder interest in the land. Cf. 31 C.J.S.Estoppel Section 5 (1980); Watson v. Goldsmith, 205 S.C. 215, 31 S.E.2d 317 (1944). We therefore reject appellants' contention that the respondents are estopped to assert that the rights vested in them preva......
-
Horton v. Horton
... ... M. Davis Son & ... Co. v. Stukes, 1923, 122 S.C. 539, 115 S.E. 814; and because ... of the former decision of the precise issue, Watson v ... Goldsmith, 1944, 205 S.C. 215, 31 S.E.2d 317, although ... the latter is not an exact illustration of res judicata as ... will be seen by ... ...