Messrs. Bernard Manning, of Columbia for Respondent,United States Fidelity Guaranty Company, Herbert, Dial Windham, for Respondent, Glens Falls Insurance Co.,McKay, McKay Black Walker, of Columbia, for Respondent;Aetna Casualty Surety Co. and Robinson, McFadden Moore, of Columbia, for Respondent, The SouthCarolina Ins. Co., cite: As to the 1965 Amendment to Section47-407 of the Code of Laws of South Carolina 1962,being unconstitutional as special legislation: 137 S.C. 266, 135 S.E. 60; 66 S.C. 219, 44 S.E. 797; 223 S.C. 161, 103 S.E.2d 923; 226 S.C. 349, 85 S.E.2d 192; 223 S.C. 401, 76 S.E.2d 299; 186 S.C. 290, 195 S.E. 539; 214 S.C. 11, 51 S.E.2d 95; 242 S.C. 237, 130 S.E.2d 573; 243 S.C. 398, 134 S.E.2d 211; 183 S.C. 368, 191 S.E. 51; 188 S.C. 460, 199 S.E. 683; (S.C.) 150 S.E.2d 607. As to the 1966Business License Tax imposed on Respondents being discriminatory,and depriving Respondents of constitutionaland statutory rights: 75 S.C. 62, 55 S.E. 136; 132 S.C. 241, 128 S.E. 172; 127 S.C. 167, 120 S.E. 717; 78 S.C. 445, 59 S.E. 148; 277 U.S. 32, 72 L.Ed. 770, 48 S.Ct. 423; 301 U.S. 459, 81 L.Ed. 1223, 57 S.Ct. 831; 245 U.S. 457, 1 L.Ed.2d 1485; 165 U.S. 150; 214 S.C. 11, 51 S.E.2d 95; 127 F. Supp. 435; 162 F.2d 789; 80 S.C. 127, 61 S.E. 255; 184 S.C. 316, 192 S.E. 565; 365 U.S. 85, 5 L.Ed.2d 428, 81 S.Ct. 421; 355 U.S. 253, 2 L.Ed.2d 247, 78 S.Ct. 212; 248 S.C. 412, 150 S.E.2d 525.
dated May 23, 1967, being a "successfulconclusion" of Elmwood's foreclosure action as definedin the agreement of June 20, 1966: 59 Corpus JurisSecundum 656, Sections 432 and 433; 38 S.C. 90, 16 S.E. 833; 100 U.S. 638. Messrs. Cooper, Gary, Nexsen Pruet, of Columbia, forRespondent, cite: As to the order entitled "Judgment ofForeclosure and Sale" dated May 23, 1967 not being a "successfulconclusion" of Elmwood's foreclosure action as definedin the Agreement of June 20, 1966, 241 S.C. 155, 127 S.E.2d 439; 17 Am. Jur.2d, Contracts, Sec. 293, page 710. As to the doctrine or rule of "Inverse Order ofAlienation" not applying in this case: 38 S.C. 90, 16 S.E. 833; C.J.S., Section 432, at page 656. As to considerationfor the agreement and the partial release of mortgage lien: 232 S.C. 161, 101 S.E.2d 486; 234 S.C. 1, 106 S.E.2d 447; 128 S.C. 79, 121 S.E. 559. As to questionsargued by Appellants not being raised by proper exceptions: 251 S.C. 375, 162 S.E.2d 539; 252 S.C. 641, 168 S.E.2d 306; 243 S.C. 398, 134 S.E.2d 211; 252 S.C. 146, 165 S.E.2d 633; 244 S.C. 588, 138 S.E.2d 38. Messrs. Henry H. Edens, and Charles F. Cooper, of Columbia, for Appellants, in Reply.
.2d 395; 58 S.C. 382, 36 S.E. 734; 100 S.C. 220, 84 S.E. 713; 123 S.C. 371, 116 S.E. 427; 161 S.C. 170, 159 S.E. 26; 118 S.C. 470, 111 S.E. 15; 53 S.C. 285, 31 S.E. 252; 145 S.C. 53, 142 S.E. 828; 30 A. Am. Jur. 441, Sec. 393; 210 S.C. 1, 41 S.E.2d 372; 105 S.C. 432, 90 S.E. 37; 14 Rich. Eq. 291; 1 S.C. 421; 87 S.C. 55, 68 S.E. 966. As to Appellantbeing entitled to an accounting: Rich. Eq. 1; 133 S.C. 43, 130 S.E. 550. As to a co-trustee being liable for gross negligence: 10 Rich. Eq. 247; 181 U.S. 601, 45 L.Ed. 1021, 21 S.Ct. 737; Am. Law Institute Restatement, Trusts, Vol. 1, Sec. 224 2d (b); 54 Am. Jur. 245, 258, 259. Messrs. McEachin, Townsend Zeigler, of Florence, for Respondents, cite: As to rule that the findings of fact bya Master, concurred in by the Circuit Judge, are conclusiveupon the reviewing court and will not be disturbed unless itis shown that such findings are without any evidence to supportthem, or are against the clear preponderance of theevidence: 135 S.E.2d 725; 234 S.C. 398, 134 S.E.2d 211; 240 S.C. 130, 125 S.E.2d 1; 232 S.C. 237, 101 S.E.2d 651. As to the law of trusts as applying toinstant case: Scott The law of Trusts; Restatement of the Law of Trusts; 1 McCord Eq. 383. As to Appellant beingbarred by both laches and the statute of limitations fromchallenging the deed he executed: 138 S.C. 491, 136 S.E. 744; 228 S.C. 192, 89 S.E.2d 280. As to there beingsufficient competent evidence to support the finding thatthe defense of plene administravit has been established andbars Appellant's claim for an accounting: 44 S.C. 386, 22 S.E. 479; 193 S.C. 349, 8 S.E.2d 629; 34 C.J.S. 761, Executors and Administrators, Sec. 738; 123 S.C. 252, 116 S.E. 279. As to Appellant having no power to raiseissues de novo in the Appellate Court: 232 S.C. 405, 102 S.E.2d 364; 229 S.C. 92, 91 S.E.2d 876; 232 S.C. 237, 101 S.E.2d 651; 231 S.C. 301, 98 S.E.2d 534; 234 S.C. 237, 107 S.E.2d 449; 241 S.C. 516, 129 S.E.2d 431. January 19, 1965.