Witherspoon v. Stogner, 14419.

• Decision Date: 25 January 1937
• Docket Number: No. 14419.,14419.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: WITHERSPOON. v. STOGNER (three cases).

189 S.E. 758

WITHERSPOON.
v.
STOGNER (three cases).

No. 14419.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Jan. 25, 1937.

CARTER. J„ dissenting.

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Lancaster County; G. Dewey Oxner, Judge.

Separate actions by Bartlett Jones Witherspoon by Mary Dunnom Witherspoon, his guardian ad litem, by Marion Sims Witherspoon, and by Mary Dunnom Witherspoon, against John F. Stogner, administrator of the estate of Mrs. L. K. Witherspoon, deceased, John T. Stevens, and W. G. Stevens. From an order referring the cases to a special referee, defendants John T. Stevens and W. G. Stevens appeal.

Affirmed.

The order of Judge Oxner follows:

The three above-entitled causes came on to be heard before me upon motions, duly noticed by attorneys for plaintiffs, for an order of reference in each. Said motions were resisted by the attorneys for the defendants John T. Stevens and W. G. Stevens. Each of the named plaintiffs is an heir at law and distributee of the estate of his or her father, Marion S. Witherspoon, who died intestate in Lancaster county, S. C, in 1916. On October 25, 1916, Mrs. L. K. Witherspoon was duly appointed administratrix of said intestate estate, with John T. Stevens and W. G. Stevens as sureties upon her administration bond. These actions were commenced November 27, 1935, and as originally brought, each was against Mrs. L. K. Witherspoon, John T. Stevens, and W. G. Stevens, as parties defendant. Thereafter, to wit, January 3, 1936, Mrs. L. K. Witherspoon died intestate and in default; she having theretofore failed to plead or appear in any manner.

After the death of Mrs. L. K. Witherspoon, John F. Stogner was, on the 15th day of February, 1936, duly appointed the administrator of her estate, and thereafter, on March 24, 1936, upon motion of plaintiff's attorneys, duly consented to, I passed an order substituting said John P. Stogner as administrator as a party defendant in.

[189 S.E. 759]

lieu of his intestate, the said Mrs. L. K. Witherspoon.

While there are three separate and distinct causes, the respective complaints, answers, and motions are practically identical, so that the issues and questions presented in each of said causes for any decision are identical, making necessary only one decision and this one order, which is applicable to and decisive of each said motion.

The motions were originally noticed to be heard before me at Chester, but, by agreement of counsel, were marked heard and thereafter fully presented and ably argued before me at...