Young v. Garlington

Citations

• 31 S.C. 290
• 9 S.E. 960
• 1889 S.C. LEXIS 33

Syllabus

<p>1. An exception alleging error to the Circuit Judge “because he failed to sustain plaintiff’s exceptions to the master’s report, and that he did not give the plaintiff the relief he asked,” is too general, and therefore, under rule 5, cannot be considered.</p> <p>2. In action for the foreclosure of a mortgage given by defendant as “agent and trustee” for the purchase money of a house and lot conveyed to him as “agent and trustee,” it appeared that the defendant, in these transactions, was acting for his wife, with the knowledge of the mortgagee. Held, that the Circuit Judge did not err in requiring, of his own motion, the wife of the mortgagor to be made a party.</p> <p>3. Findings of fact by master and Circuit Judge approved.</p> <p>4. Accounts contracted under an agreement that they shall'be considered as part payment by the debtor on a bond held by her against the creditor are properly applicable, as of their date, in part payment of the bond, and the defence of the statute of limitations to these accounts, when pleaded as such payments, was properly overruled.</p> <p>5. In action by an executor against G. for foreclosure of a mortgage given to testatrix, G. asserted his interest as legatee in satisfaction of the debt. Plaintiff, in his reply, alleged that G. had in his possession assets of testatrix more than sufficient to cover his interest in the estate. It appeared at the trial that Mrs. G. was the real debtor on the bond and mortgage, and by amendment Mrs. G. was brought in. Held., that under this changed character of the action the litigation between plaintiff and G. as to the estate of plaintiff’s testatrix could not _ be considered.</p>