Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1945

Meacham v. Higginbotham

Meacham v. Higginbotham
Supreme Court of South Carolina · Decided February 6, 1945 · <italic>Per Curiam:</italic>
32 S.E.2d 875; 206 S.C. 75; 1945 S.C. LEXIS 41 (South Eastern Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. B.F. Martin and Messrs. Love Thornton , all of Greenville, S.C. Counsel for Appellants, cite: As to Constructive Trusts: 30 C.J., 169-170, 106 S.C. 386 , 391 , 91 S.E., 286 ; 1 Pom. Eq. Jur., 1905 Ed., Sec. 155, at pp. 178-179; 200 S.C. 279 , 20 S.E.2d 741 , Syll. 9 and 11, and pp. 299-300 of S.C. Rep. As to Resulting Trusts: 56 S.C. 78 , 83 , 34 S.E., 22 ; 93 S.C. 350 , 454 , 77 S.E. 129 ; 39 Cyc., 105, 19 S.C. 126 , Syll. 1; 23 S.C. 250 , Syll. 5 and pp. 265-267: 200 S.C. 279 , 20 S.E.2d 741 , Syll. 1. As to Burden of Proof: 200 S.C. 279 , at pp. 306-307, 20 S.E.2d 741 ; 65 C.J., 440; 169 S.C. 41 , 168 S.E., 143 , Syll. 18; 146 S.C. 322 , 327 , 144 S.E., 66 , citing 22 C.J., 69. As to Presumptions: 4 Wigmore, Secs. 2487, 2488, 2489 and 2491; Greenleaf, 16th Ed., Sec. 14W, pp. 93, 94, 98, 99 and 102; 203 S.C. 318 , Syll. 5 and pp. 329, 331; 26 S.E.2d 835 ; 169 S.C. 41 , 168 S.E., 143 ; 219 U.S. 35 , 31 S.Ct., 136 , 138 , 55 L.Ed., 78 , 49 S.Ct., 445 , 447 , 279 U.S. 639 . Mr. W.C. Mann , of Pickens, S.C. and Mr. Wilbur Hicks , of Greenville, S.C. Counsel for Respondent, cite: As to Gifts: 3 Strob. Eq., 371; 28 C.J., Gifts, 623, 624; 52 S.C. 371 ; 38 S.C. 173 , 17 S.E., 452 ; Bail. Eq., 141; 4 McCord, 251; 105 S.C. 459 , 90 S.E., 34 ; Knott McCord, 237; 119 S.C. 12 , 111 S.E., 725 ; 138 S.C. 86 , 135 S.E., 643 ; 22 S.C. 314 ; 130 S.C. 265 , 126 S.E., 34 . As to "Intention": 90 S.C. 332 , 333 .

Meacham v. Higginbotham

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

A detailed discussion of the testimony in this case would be of no value to future litigants, and of course the parties to this action are familiar with all of the facts surrounding the transaction out of which this litigation arose .

*83 We have read with care the record, the greater portion of it twice; and it is our considered opinion that the order of the learned Circuit Judge (now an Associate Justice of this Court) reached the equitable and correct result irrespective of where the burden of proof lies. Let the said order be reported.

Affirmed.

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