From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McKellar v. Stanton

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Apr 23, 1916
104 S.C. 248 (S.C. 1916)

Summary

In McKellar v. Stanton, 104 S.C. 248, 88 S.E., 527, relied on by the defendant and cited by the circuit Judge in support of his conclusion that the cause should be referred, the defendant sought to convert an action for an accounting brought by the trustee of a corporation against the defendants as its officers and directors, from an equitable action into a legal action, so as to secure for themselves a trial by jury.

Summary of this case from Peeples v. Hornik

Opinion

9381

April 23, 1916.

Before BOWMAN, J., Bennettsville, August, 1915. Affirmed.

Action by P.A. McKellar, as trustee, against J.A. Stanton., Jr., and others, in their own right and as executors. From an order denying jury trial, defendants appeal.

Messrs. D.D. McColl, J.K. Owens and Stevenson, Stevenson Prince, for appellants, cite: 72 S.C. 463; 5 R.C. L., p. 1091, sec. 41; 44 S.C. 63.

Mr. Geo. E. Dargan, for respondent, cites: As to fiduciary relationship: 94 S.C. 312; 100 S.C. 51; 75 S.C. 112; 46 S.C. 146; 15 S.C. Eq. (Chev.) 189; 1 Corpus Juris. 621, sec. 68; 1 R.C.L. 224, sec. 26; 35 Am. St. Rep. 554; 155 Am. St. Rep. 156.


April 23, 1916. The opinion of the Court was delivered by


This is an appeal from an order of Judge Bowman refusing to declare the action to be one of law and to place it on Calendar 1 for trial by jury. But he retained the cause on Calendar 2, where it had been put by plaintiff's counsel, and referred the cause to a special referee to hear and determine the same and report the same to the Court.

The only question raised by exceptions is whether the cause as raised by the pleadings is an action at law or in equity. It appears from the allegation of the complaint that the defendants were the only stockholders, officers, and directors of the said corporation. This allegation is admitted by the defendants, and this establishes a fiduciary relation between them and the corporation, represented in this case by the trustee, and the pleadings establish this situation.

Under the allegations of the complaint, that the defendants were the whole corporation, officers, directors, and only stockholders, that they obtained credit, bought goods and merchandise, borrowed money, which they fail and refuse to pay, and, as such officers, directors, and only stockholders acting as such, wrongfully conspired together to cheat and defraud the creditors of the corporation, and misappropriated the assets, and converted them to their own use, and refuse to satisfactorily account for the same or give any information as to the disposal of the same, though requested to do so, states a cause of action in equity which clearly states their duty as fiduciaries to account therefor, under the case of Black v. Simpson, 94 S.C. 312, 77 S.E. 1023, 46 L.R.A. (N.S.) 137; Cobb v. Garlington, 100 S.C. 51, 84 S.E. 302.

Under the allegations of the complaint there is ample allegation to require the defendants to account for actings and doings, under the cases of Kerr v. Camden Steamboat Co., Cheves' Eq. 189; Buist v. Melchers, 44 S.C. 63, 21 S.E. 449.

The pleadings show a cause in equity, and not one of law where the defendants were entitled, as a matter of right, to a jury trial, and we see no error on the part of his Honor. Exceptions overruled.

Judgment affirmed.


Summaries of

McKellar v. Stanton

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Apr 23, 1916
104 S.C. 248 (S.C. 1916)

In McKellar v. Stanton, 104 S.C. 248, 88 S.E., 527, relied on by the defendant and cited by the circuit Judge in support of his conclusion that the cause should be referred, the defendant sought to convert an action for an accounting brought by the trustee of a corporation against the defendants as its officers and directors, from an equitable action into a legal action, so as to secure for themselves a trial by jury.

Summary of this case from Peeples v. Hornik
Case details for

McKellar v. Stanton

Case Details

Full title:McKELLAR v. STANTON ET AL

Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina

Date published: Apr 23, 1916

Citations

104 S.C. 248 (S.C. 1916)
88 S.E. 527

Citing Cases

Peeples v. Hornik

See, also, 149 S.C. 40, 146 S.E., 680. Messrs. Hyde, Mann Figg, Thos. P. Stoney, and A.R.McGowan, for…

Symmes et al. v. Graham

Messrs. W.D. Workman and W.H. Earle for appellant, cite: Where parties do not consent, the Court may direct…