Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1927

Baker v. De Witt

Baker v. De Witt
Supreme Court of South Carolina · Decided June 20, 1927 · MR. JUSTICE STABLER.
138 S.E. 626; 140 S.C. 114; 1927 S.C. LEXIS 28 (South Eastern Reporter)

Counsel

Messrs. Willcox Hardee , for appellant, cite: Deed or mortgage purporting to convey homestead by a married man is void, unless his wife joins in the execution of the conveyance: Art. 3, Sec. 28, Const.; Sec. 5494, Code; 16 A.L.R., 1033; 25 S.C. 481 ; 21 S.C. 371 ; 26 S.C. 13 ; 45 S.C. 338 ; 59 S.C. 367 . Bankruptcy courts have jurisdiction which is exclusive, to determine the claims of bankrupts to their exemptions: Rem. on Bkr., Sec. 1274; 127 Fed., 522. Purpose of statutory provisions as to recording of returns of homestead appraisers simply to give notice: 52 S.C. 574 . Joint consent of husband and wife necessary to convey homestead rights: 13 R.C.L., 627; 174 Pac., 747. Mr. Philip H. Arrowsmith , for respondents, cites: Relation of Bankruptcy Court to the exemptions allowed the bankrupt under state law: 77 S.E., 82; 85 S.E., 875; 5 F.2d 326 ; 1 Coll. on Bkr. (13th Ed.), 284, Sec. 6; 16 A.L.R., 1023; 127 Fed., 522. Recording of homestead necessary: Secs. 5490, 5491, 5494, Code; 20 S.C. 522 ; 52 S.C. 574 ; 65 S.C. 308 ; 70 S.C. 409 ; 116 S.C. 25 ; 23 S.C. 374 .

Baker v. De Witt

Opinion of the Court

June 20, 1927. The opinion of the Court was delivered by The reasoning and conclusions of his Honor, Judge Dennis, in the above-stated case, are satisfactory to this Court, and his decree, appealed from, is affirmed.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WATTS and MR. JUSTICE BLEASE and MR. ACTING ASSOCIATE JUSTICE PURDY concur.

Concurring Opinion

The case ofYoungblood v. Lathen, 20 S.C. 370, is conclusive of the question. *Page 123

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