From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Etheredge v. Porter et al

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Mar 2, 1926
134 S.C. 71 (S.C. 1926)

Opinion

11926

March 2, 1926.

Before TOWNSEND, J., Orangeburg, November, 1924. Reversed.

Action by John K. Etheredge against Barbara E. Porter and others. From a compulsory order of reference granted upon plaintiff's motion, defendants appeal.

Messrs. Wolfe Berry, for appellants, cite: Issues joined to be settled by jury: Rule 28 of the Circuit Courts, 1922. When a reference may be compulsory: Code Civ. Pro., 1922, Sec. 593.

Mr. E.B. Friday, for respondent, cites: When order of reference appealable: 85 S.C. 299; 64 S.C. 290; 49 S.C. 423. Case one of equitable cognizance: 105 S.C. 280; 84 S.C. 98; 64 S.C. 396. Order of reference may be granted at chambers: 109 S.C. 139; 85 S.C. 299; 64 S.C. 292. Judge in County other than where action pending but in same circuit; jurisdiction: Code Civ. Pro., 1922, Sec. 35. Granting order of reference discretionary: 82 S.C. 150; 56 S.C. 298; 55 S.C. 254.


March 2, 1926. The opinion of the Court was delivered by


This is an action to set aside certain deeds executed by the defendant, Barbara E. Porter, which are alleged to have been executed in fraud of the rights of the plaintiff, a subsequent judgment creditor. The appeal is from a compulsory order of reference granted upon motion of the plaintiff over the protest and objection of the defendants.

It is settled by the decisions of this Court, notably Newell v. Blankenship, 130 S.C. 131; 125 S.E., 420, and Bank v. Foster, 132 S.C. 410; 129 S.E., 629, that a compulsory order of reference may be ordered only in cases coming within the equitable cognizance of the Court; and that even if the cause of action be deemed equitable, the Court has no power to compulsorily order a reference except under the circumstances detailed in Section 593 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1922, "where the trial of an issue of fact shall require the examination of a long account on either side." The case presented does come within the provisions of the Code, and as a consequence the order of reference was erroneous.

The judgment of this Court is that the order appealed from be reversed.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE GARY and MESSRS. JUSTICES WATTS, BLEASE and STABLER concur.


Summaries of

Etheredge v. Porter et al

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Mar 2, 1926
134 S.C. 71 (S.C. 1926)
Case details for

Etheredge v. Porter et al

Case Details

Full title:ETHEREDGE v. PORTER ET AL

Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina

Date published: Mar 2, 1926

Citations

134 S.C. 71 (S.C. 1926)
131 S.E. 768

Citing Cases

Palmetto B. T. Co. v. Grimsley et al

Affirmed. Mr. D. Gordon Baker, for appellant, cites: Error to grantorder of reference unless long account…

Moss et al. v. Burdette et al

Action by Walter D. Moss, receiver, and others against J.B. Burdette and others. From orders adverse to…