Jackson v. Plyler

Citations

• 38 S.C. 496
• 17 S.E. 255
• 1893 S.C. LEXIS 87

Syllabus

<p>1. Findings of Fact. — The finding by master and Circuit Judge, as a fact, that a deed was voluntary, approved, there being evidence to sustain this finding.</p> <p>2. Voluntary Deed — Subsequent Creditors — Fraud.—A deed will not be held fraudulent as to subsequent creditors, on the sole ground that it is voluntary; but where it is executed under circumstances which also show a moral fraud towards subsequent creditors, it will be held void at their instance, even though they had notice of the deed.</p> <p>3. Ibid. — Ibid.—Ibid.—Finding of Fact. — Where a man, insolvent at the time, or shortly afterwards, makes a voluntary deed to his wife, so that he may save a home to her, whatever turns up, is soon afterwards sued, and then gives a mortgage on the same land, there is evidence enough to sustain the finding by master and Circuit Judge, that the deed was made with intent to commit an actual fraud towards subsequent creditors.</p> <p>4. Limitations of Actions — Plea.—Plaintiff brought action to foreclose a mortgage given by the intestate husband of defendant. Defendant relied upon a prior deed to the same land from the husband to herself, and plaintiff then assailed this deed for fraud. Held, that defendant could rely upon the statute of limitations as a bar to the alleged fraud without formally pleading the statute. Possibly, it would have been better practice to object to all testimony of fraud when offered.</p> <p>5. Ibid. — Fraud—Defence.—Where the action is not to vacate the deed for fraud, but for foreclosure of a mortgage of land, and the prior deed to the same land, interposed as a defence, is assailed for fraud, the statute of limitations against the allegation of fraud is inapplicable. Amaker v. New, 33 S. 0., 35, approved and followed.</p>