Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1923

Wells v. Sumter Trust Co., Exor.

Supreme Court of South Carolina · Decided May 1, 1923 · Gary, Fraser, Marion, Watts, Cothran

117 S.E. 519; 124 S.C. 244; 1923 S.C. LEXIS 129 (South Eastern Reporter)

Counsel

Messrs. Lee Moise, Purdy Bland and M.W. Seabrook , for appellant, cite: Plaintiff as overseer entitled to compensation for labor: 20 S.C. 11 ; 2 Bail 581; 40 S.C. 51 . Entitled to no more than share of profits when crop divided or sold: 12 Allen (Mass.), 354; 17 C.J., 862; note 87; 5 Vana (Ky.), 536. Answer must be considered as a whole: 15 S.C. 268 ; 9 S.C. 459 ; 2 Strob., 415; 22 C.J., 332. Pleading must not be construed against pleader: 12 S.C. 1 ; 12 S.C. 576 ; 25 S.C. 123 ; 38 S.C. 241 ; 8 S.C. 104 ; 29 S.C. 258 ; 75 S.C. 125 . Improper for jury to keep notes: 38 S.C. 182 . Messrs. Raymon Schwartz and Epps Levy , for respondent, cite: Allegation of complaint not denied is admitted: 16 S.C. 579 ; Code Proc. 1912 Sec. 219; 35 S.C. 165 ; 98 S.C. 136 . Denial of whole transaction does not come within Code Proc., 1912 Sec. 438; 26 S.C. 163 ; 34 S.C. 246 ; 30 S.C. 289 ; 78 S.C. 23 . Where funds are traced into hands of a fiduciary he must account for them: 100 S.C. 51 ; 115 S.C. 262 . As to granting supersedeas: 35 S.C. 584 .

Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Chief Justice Gary. '

The principal issue of fact under the pleadings arises out of the allegations in the second paragraph of the complaint and their denial by the second paragraph of the answer. There was testimony tending to sustain the allegations of the complaint, and the findings of fact by the jury are not reviewable by this Court. It is not necessary to consider the exceptions in detail,, as none of them, when the case is considered in its entirety, show prejudicial error.

Affirmed.

Mr. Chief Justices Fraser and Marion concur. Mr Justice Watts dissents. Mr. Justice Cothran disqualified.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.