Lamar v. Pool

Citations

• 26 S.C. 441
• 2 S.E. 322
• 1887 S.C. LEXIS 58

Syllabus

<p>1. Wilks v. Walker, 22 S. G., 108, and Austin, Nichols & Go. v. Morris, 23 Id., 393, stated. These oases declare that an instrument intended to operate as an assignment with preferences is void, but that an indebted party may lawfully make a mortgage, when it is intended only to secure one creditor in preference to another.</p> <p>2. Where the master and Circuit Judge differ in their findings of fact in a case in chancery, these matters come before this court as open questions, uninfluenced by the findings below. In this case the conclusions reached by the Circuit Judge were approved.</p> <p>3. A paper may be fraudulent at common law, or under the statute of Elizabeth, and yet be free from attack under section 2014 of General Statutes. To render an instrument void under this section, it must be (1 st) an assignment, and (2nd) a preference therein given; and it matters not whether such preference be fraudulent or not.</p> <p>4. A mortgage given by an insolvent debtor to one of his creditors, covering all of his property, for the purpose of securing the mortgagee, and not with intent to evade the assignment law, is not void under section 2014.</p> <p>5. And this mortgage having been cancelled before action brought, the court could not grant any relief to the suing creditor under this action.</p>