Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1943

First Presbyterian Church v. York Depository

Supreme Court of South Carolina · Decided November 5, 1943 · Messrs, Baker, Fisi-Iburne, Stukes, Sease, Henderson

27 S.E.2d 573; 203 S.C. 410; 1943 S.C. LEXIS 104 (South Eastern Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Messrs. Hart Moss , of York, S.C. Counsel for Appellant, cite: As to Appellant being a "third person" within meaning of Sec. 8804, Code of 1932, under facts of case at Bar: Code of S.C. 1932, Secs. 8804, 8875; Code of S.C. 1932, Sec. 8873; Spears' Eq., 159; 192 S.C. 429 , 7 S.E.2d 63 ; Code of S.C. 1932, Sec. 7042; Bouvier's Law Dict.; 1 Mart. (N.S.), La., 384; 130 Mich., 347 , 90 N.W., 32 ; 10 Minn., 50 ; 28 R.I. 319 , 67 A., 326 ; 64 Wis. 173 , 24 N.W., 874 . As to Whether Section 8804, Code of S.C. 1932, Was Repealed By Not Being Adopted as Part of Code of 1942; And if Repealed are "vested rights" retroactively divested?: Sec. 8804, Code of S.C. 1932; Sec. 8804, Code of S.C. 1942; Secs. 1 and 2 of Act Adopting Code of 1942, Approved Sept. 26, 1942; 55 S.C. 295 , 33 S.E., 372 ; 87 S.C. 270 , 69 S.E., 391 , Affirmed in 60 L.Ed., 658 ; 91 S.C. 344 , 74 S.E., 1010 ; 6 R.C.L., at p. 305 and 306; 25 R.C.L., at p. 785, and p. 795; 165 S.C. 219 ,. Mr. R.B. Hildebrand , of York, S.C. Counsel for Respondent, cites: As to History of Section 8804, Code of S.C. 1932: St. At L., Vol. VI, p. 67; Corbin's St. At L., (1872) p. 433; Rev. St., Vol. I, (1893) p. 658; Sec. 2414, Vol. I, Code of S.C. 1902; Sec. 3500, Vol. I, Code of S.C. 1912; Sec. 5270, Vol. III, Code of S.C. 1922; Sec. 8804, Vol. III, Code of S.C. 1932; Sec. 8804, Code of S.C. 1942; 1 Bail., 315 (1829); Speer's Eq., 159 (1843); 192 S.C. 420 , 7 S.E.2d 63 . As to Plaintiff being "a third person" under meaning of Sec. 8804: 16 A.J., Sec. 32, p. 797, also p. 799, Sec. 33; Id. , Sec., 34, p. 801; 32 A.J., Sec., 95, p. 103; 146 S.C. 225 , 143 S.E., 796 ; 2 Mill Const., 18; 2 Bail. L. (18 S.C.L.), 554; 25 R.C.L., Sec. 289, p. 1065; 25 R.C.L., Sec., 292, p. 1067; 23 R.C. L., Sec. 25, p. 171; 23 R.C.L., Sec. 24, p. 170; 189 S.C. 463 , 1 S.E.2d 624 ; 23 R.C.L., Sec. 95, p. 230; 25 R.C.L., Sec. 285, p. 1061; 83 S.C. 427 , 65 S.E., 433 ; 71 S.C. 992 . As to Repeal of Sec. 8804, Code of S.C. 1932: Const. of S.C. 1895, Art. VI, Sec. 5; 148 S.C. 118 , 145 S.E., 695 ; 155 S.C. 520 , 152 S.E., 700 ., 162 S.C. 52 , 160 S.E., 144 ; 96 S.C. 313 , 80 S.C. 599 ; 2 Rich. Eq., 43; 59 C.J., Sec. 717, p. 1181; 50 C.J., Sec. 718; 2 McC. Eq., 171; 4 McCord, 476; 4 McCord, 442; 1 Hill Eq., 265.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

The exceptions to the order of Judge Ride, who tried this case on Circuit, have been carefully considered and are found to be without merit. The order, in our opinion, is a correct disposition of the controversy. It is affirmed and adopted as the judgment of this Court, and will be reported.

Messrs. Associate Justices Baker, Fisi-iburne and Stukes and Circuit Judges T. S. Sease and E. H. Henderson, Acting Associate Justices, concur.

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