Opinion
15359
January 28, 1942.
Before MANN, J., Richland County, January, 1941.
Messrs. Grier, McDonald Todd, of Greenwood, and Mr. Hunter A. Gibbes, of Columbia, cite: As to broad principles of equity: 24 R.C.L., 804; Zollman, 4542; Mo. St. Ann., 837, p. 1110; 279 S.W. 435, 437; 5 Fed. Sup., 762; 291 U.S. 660; 78 L.Ed., 1052; 20 F.2d 74; 30 Fed., 178; 76 F.2d 251; 104 U.S. 54; 56 F.2d 534; 287 U.S. 603; 11 Fed. Supp., 290; 76 F.2d 153; 83 F.2d 236; 48 F.2d 169; 5 Fed., 390; 123 U.S. 105; 254 Fed., 165; 71 Minn., 394; 73 N.W., 1096; 21 F.2d 993; 74 W. Va., 623; 82 S.E., 507; 146 U.S. 499; 126 Ky., 169; 91 Tex., 294; 52 Tex., 253; 7 Zollman, 4492; 40 N.Y.S., 392; 8 App. Div., 40; 150 So., 777; 8 S.W. 1030; 283 Ill. App., 1; 7 Zollman on Bank, Sec. 4494; 39 S.W. 704; 185 Ark. 933; 189 S.E., 483; 211 N.C. 137; 22 Colo., 278; 110 S.W.2d 176; 198 N.W., 498; 50 Ohio App., 404; 190 N.C. 595; 130 S.E., 328; 42 Neb. 859; 61 N.W., 127; 39 S.W. 704; 124 Pac., 751. As to the legal principles of off-set: Sec. 398, Code 1932; Code 1932, Secs. 6778, 6802, 6803, 6808; 15 Fed., 675; 182 La., 421; 102 A.L.R., 1091; 219 N.W., 496; 7 Zollman on Bank, Sec. 4411, p. 21. As to South Carolina cases supporting claims: 182 S.C. 12; 161 S.C. 77, 159 S.E., 492; 172 S.C. 276, 173 S.E., 908; 145 S.C. 9; 125 S.C. 218; 23 R.C.L., 7; 34 Cyc., 191; 125 S.C. 332, 118 S.E., 290; 140 S.C. 356.
Messrs. Melton Belser, of Columbia, for respondent, cite: As to bona fide purchaser of note: Code 1932, Secs. 6778, 6802, 6808; 128 S.C. 67, 122 S.E., 24; 163 S.C. 251; 110 S.C. 99; 96 S.E., 484; 78 S.C. 531, 59 S.E., 639; 36 S.C. 136, 15 S.E., 430; 26 S.C. 506, 25 S.E., 501; 11 Rich., 663; 5 Strob., 108; 11 Rich., 657; 14 S.C. 142; Brannon on N.I., Sec. 27, pp. 247-254; 10 C.J., p. 808, Sec. 317; 8 C.J., Sec. 702, p. 825, Sec. 1087; 3 R.C. L., 837, Sec. 10, p. 839, Sec. 12, p. 994, Sec. 202; Jones 3d, Collateral Securities, Sec. 89; 72 S.C. 458, 53 S.E., 195; 155 S.C. 431. As to allowance of claim of preference: 145 S.C. 1, 142 S.E., 788; 77 S.C. 305, 57 S.E., 182; 136 S.C. 514; 164 S.C. 261, 162 S.E., 458; 1932 Code, Sec. 7854; 184 S.C. 291; 3 Michie on Banks and Banking, p. 223, Sec. 163. As to mutual demands: 148 S.C. 159, 145 S.E., 927; 146 S.C. 172; 184 S.C. 391, 192 S.E., 400; 128 A.L.R., 802; 24 R.C.L., 858; 24 R.C. L., 792; 23 R.C.L., 57; 42 S.C. 357; 20 S.E., 153; 38 S.C. 372; 17 S.E., 316. As to rights of holder in due course: 26 S.C. 506, 2 S.E., 501. As to rights of parties: 110 F.2d 961; 282 N.W., 299. As to marshaling: 268 U.S. 449; 69 L.Ed., 1041; 92 A.L.R., 1085; 139 S.W.2d 646. As to payment under protest: 21 R.C.L., p. 141, Sec. 165. As to decisions disallowing offset of preference: 15 Fed., 675; 207 Iowa, 1254; 219 N.W., 496; Michie on Banks and Banking, Vol. 5, Sec. 158 (b), p. 304; Zollman on Banks and Banking, Vol. 7, Sec. 4411, p. 21. As to rights of pledgee: 72 S.C. 458, 52 S.E., 195; 162 S.C. 107, 160 S.E., 156. As to decisions in other jurisdictions: 211 N.C. 137; 189 S.E., 483; 22 Colo., 278; 124 Pac., 751; 71 Minn., 394; 73 N.W., 1061; 156 S.C. 181; 153 S.E., 133; 14 A.2d 96; 339 Penn., 1. As to subrogation: 126 S.C. 346, 120 S.E., 64; 160 S.C. 528; 160 S.C. 37; 101 S.C. 457, 86 S.E., 26.
January 28, 1942. The opinion of the Court was delivered by
The appellants in this case, Erskine College and Hunter A. Gibbes, are petitioners in the receivership cause affecting the Central Union Bank of South Carolina. At the time the bank closed they were depositors, and they also were debtors to the bank on certain notes.
The material facts affecting the claims of these appellants are the same as those involved in the case of Ex parte Mechanics Federal Savings and Loan Association (In re Zimmerman v. Central Union Bank), 18 S.E.2d 592, decided this day, and the rulings made in that case are decisive of the issues in the present appeal.
Consequently, to the extent of the amounts of the deposits of these two claimants, less any dividends that may have been collected by them, they are entitled to recover from the conservator of the bank the full amounts of principal and interest paid by them to the Reconstruction Finance Corporation.
The decision of the Circuit Court is reversed, and the cause is remanded for the entry of judgment in favor of appellants in accordance with this opinion.
MESSRS. ASSOCIATE JUSTICES FISHBURNE and STUKES and MR. ACTING ASSOCIATE JUSTICE G. DEWEY OXNER concur.
This case involves the same issues that are involved in the case of Ex parte Mechanics Federal Savings and Loan Association of Rock Hill, South Carolina (In re Simpson J. Zimmerman, as conservator of the Central Union Bank of South Carolina v. Central Union Bank of South Carolina et al), 18 S.E.2d 592, and was heard on appeal along with that case. Mr. Justice Baker has written an opinion in which he says: "The material facts affecting the claims of these appellants are the same as those involved in the case of Ex parte Mechanics Federal Savings and Loan Association (In re Zimmerman v. Central Union Bank), 18 S.E.2d 592, decided this day, and the rulings made in that case are decisive of the issues in the present appeal."
For the reason assigned by me in my dissenting opinion in the case of Ex parte Mechanics Federal Savings and Loan Association (In re Zimmerman v. Central Union Bank), I must dissent from the opinion of Mr. Justice Baker in this case.
I think the decree of the Circuit Court in this case should be affirmed.