Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1941

Parker Peanut Co. v. M.H. Felder Co.

Supreme Court of South Carolina · Decided February 12, 1941 · MR. ASSOCIATE JUSTICE FISHBURNE.

13 S.E.2d 143; 196 S.C. 271; 1941 S.C. LEXIS 125 (South Eastern Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Messrs. Felder Rosen and Zeigler Brailsford , for appellants, cite: Injunction bond where appointment of Receiver requested: Sec. 584, Code, 1932; 144 S.C. 188 ; 142 S.E., 343 . Appointment of Receiver: 71 So. 349; 14 A.C.J., 894; 19 C.J.S., 1099; 27 S.C. 408 ; 67 S.C. 254 ; 80 S.C. 84 ; 53 C.J., 29; 23 R.C.L., 16; L.R.A., 1918-C, 630; 109 A.L.R., 280; 46 F.2d 252 ; 11 L.R.A. (N.S.), 857; 18 C.J.S., 378, 383; 256 P., 983; 26 P.2d 92 ; 3 N.E.2d 393; 169 So., 685; 41 F.2d 675; 280 S.W. 120; 23 P.2d 1114 ; 292 P., 173 ; 53 P.2d 995; 7 F.2d 432 ; 250 F., 669. Liability of all stockholders for acts of one: 236 P., 777; 265 P., 1025; 222 N.W., 335 ; 102 A.L.R., 1042. Declaration of dividends: 93 S.C. 393 ; 14 C.J., 800; 14 A.C., 894, 930; 19 C.J.S., 1099, 1139; 71 So., 349; 3 N.E.2d 391 ; 1 A.L.R., 610; 34 A.L.R., 597; 102 A.L.R., 1042. As to subsequent creditors: 24 A.J., 283; 13 A.J., 819; 14 Rich. L., 95; 54 S.C. 514 ; 1 Nott McCord L., 334; 117 A.L.R., 1258. Messrs. Adam H. Moss, James A. Moss, Reddick A. Bowman and Carroll E. Summers , for respondent, cite: As to corporate structure: 184 S.C. 1 ; 191 S.E., 796 ; 7 R. C.L., 27; 18 C.J.S., 376; 25 F.2d 592 ; 30. N.E., 279; 15 L.R.A., 145; 34 A.S.R., 541; 185 S.E., 845. Appointment of Receiver: 84 S.C. 214 ; 33 S.C. 530 ; 140 S.C. 471 ; 139 S.E., 2d 797; 190 S.C. 22 ; 1 S.E.2d 904 . Right to ancillary action: 82 S.C. 382 ; 64 S.E., 398 ; 107 S.C. 514 ; 93 S.E., 188 .

Opinion of the Court

February 12, 1941. The opinion of the Court was delivered by After a painstaking examination and consideration of the lengthy record in this case, and the briefs of counsel, we are satisfied that all issues raised by the appeal were correctly decided by the Circuit Court in its comprehensive decree. In our view a prima facie showing was made which warranted the appointment of a Receiver, and this was all that the lower Court undertook to adjudge. A final determination of the issue on its merits was expressly reserved, with the right granted to all of the parties to introduce further testimony.

We adopt the decree as the judgment of this Court. Let it be reported.

Judgment affirmed.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BONHAM, MR. JUSTICE BAKER and MR. ACTING ASSOCIATE JUSTICE L.D. LIDE concur.

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