iters Insurance Company, based upon a fire insurance policy. From an order confirming the report of a Special Referee dismissing the complaint except that the plaintiff have judgment for amount of two premiums paid by the plaintiff to the defendant, the plaintiff appeals. Mr. C.E. Gardner, for appellant, cites: Insurable interest: 175 S.C. 42; 178 S.E., 254; 26 C.J., 17; 64 S.C. 413; 42 S.E., 184; 48 S.C. 195; 26 S.E., 323; 26 C.J., 21; 19 Cyc., 584; 14 R.C.L., 910; 23 S.C. 190; 45 A.L.R., 860; 101 A., 509; Ann. Cas., 1918-E, 831; 10 R.C.L., 1336; 106 S.C. 467; 91 S.C. 733; 183 S.C. 225; 191 S.E., 71; 26 S.C. 608. Pleadings: 106 S.C. 467; 91 S.E., 732; 21 C.J., 822; 182 S.C. 527; 189 S.E., 890; 60 S.C. 477; 183 S.C. 413; 177 S.C. 120; 96 S.C. 240; 80 S.E., 437; 58 S.C. 56; 36 S.E., 437; 149 S.C. 540; 147 S.E., 645; 105 S.C. 72; 138 S.C. 295; 136 S.E., 222; 120 S.C. 88; 110 S.E., 837; 181 S.E., 521; 14 R.C.L., 1343. Acceptance of service: Sec. 440, Code, 1932; 28 S.C. 119; 5 S.E., 272; 172 S.C. 333; 179 S.C. 1; 21 R.C.L., 1269. Default judgment: 15 R.C.L., 664; 177 S.C. 287. Messrs. Joseph L. Nettles and Samuel Want, for respondent, cite: Acceptance of service: 71 S.C. 17; 50 S.E., 539; 35 S.C. 391; 14 S.E., 829; 89 S.C. 508; 72 S.E., 149; 87 S.C. 552; 70 S.E., 315; 173 S.C. 158; 175 S.E., 275; 140 S.C. 18; 138 S.E., 401; 103 S.C. 233; 87 S.E., 1010; 176 S.C. 385; 180 S.E., 340; 35 S.C. 391; 14 S.E., 829; 157 S.C. 434; 154 S.E., 632; 140 S.C. 18; 138 S.E., 401; 159 S.C. 70; 156 S.E., 177; 50 C.J., 487. Collateral attack: 146 S.C. 385; 144 S.E., 82; 83 S.C. 165; 65 S.E., 257; 153 S.C. 78; 150 S.E., 473; 99 S.C. 118; 82 S.E., 988; 56 S.C. 1; 33 S.E., 731; 56 S.C. 96; 34 S.E., 11; 26 S.C. 237; 1 S.E., 884; 170 S.C. 304; 170 S.E., 449. Insurable interest: 26 C.J., 24; 54 Am. Dec., 488; 31 Am. Rep., 326. As to wagering contract: 173 S.C. 413; 176 S.E., 314; 176 S.C. 156; 179 S.E., 777; 26 C.J., 118. April 12, 1938.
Daniel R. McLeod, Atty. Gen., Raymond G. Halford and Edwin E. Evans, Asst. Attys. Gen., and LincolnC. Jenkins, III, Staff Atty., of Columbia, for Appellant, cite: As to the lower Court's having erred in issuing itsOrder in which the South Carolina Department of SocialServices was ordered to provide for the minor Respondent: 259 S.C. 387, 192 S.E.2d 214. As to the lower Court'shaving erred in ordering the Department of Social Servicesto perform any act or undertake any responsibility in thismatter insofar as the Family Court of Richland County hadno jurisdiction: 244 S.C. 485, 137 S.E.2d 800; 48 F. Supp. 708; 200 S.C. 448, 215 S.E.2d 22; 155 S.C. 436, 152 S.E. 658; 21 C.J.S. Courts, Section 35; 250 S.C. 140, 156 S.E.2d 633; 245 S.C. 399, 140 S.E.2d 781; 173 S.C. 518, 176 S.E. 711; 172 S.C. 333, 174 S.E. 17; 21 C.J.S. Courts, Section 83; 244 S.C. 399, 137 S.E.2d 406; 187 S.C. 50, 196 S.E. 253; 102 S.C. 333, 86 S.E. 683; 213 S.E.2d 732; Section 10-2605, Code of Laws of South Carolina. As to therebeing no statutory authority permitting a Family Court ofSouth Carolina to impose the responsibility of support of aminor on the South Carolina Department of Social Services: Section 15-1095, et seq., Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1962, as amended; 242 S.C. 108, 130 S.E.2d 77. Asto a lack of factual finding that the persons or entities primarilyresponsible for the care and support of the minorRespondent were not able to do so: Sections 15-1095.22; 15-1095.25, Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1962, as amended; Rule 13 of the Rules of Practice and Procedures in the Family Court; 256 S.C. 111, 181 S.E.2d 13; 262 S.C. 587, 206 S.E.2d 871; 260 S.C. 108, 194 S.E.2d 392; 260 S.C. 213, 197 S.E.2d 921. As toa lack of legal authority of the South Carolina Departmentof Social Services to pay the Devereux Sc
Mr. Norbert A. Theodore, of Columbia, for Appellant, cites: As to service of process in instant case being sufficient: 187 S.C. 70, 196 S.E. 531. Messrs. T.P. Taylor and Isadore S. Bernstein, of Columbia, for Respondents, cite: As to it being necessary thatproof of service show affirmatively that requirements of lawwere complied with: 183 S.E. 469, 179 S.C. 1; 195 S.E. 122, 186 S.C. 93; 172 S.C. 333, 174 S.E. 17. As toinability of appellant to invoke statute on appeal whichwas not raised in trial court: 68 S.E.2d 874, 221 S.C. 14; 57 S.E.2d 910, 216 S.C. 367; 40 S.E.2d 801, 209 S.C. 477; 37 S.E.2d 537, 208 S.C. 187; 36 S.E.2d 37, 207 S.C. 384; 34 S.E.2d 51, 206 S.C. 307; 17 S.E.2d 698, 198 S.C. 280; 13 S.E.2d 442, 196 S.C. 316; 8 S.E.2d 339, 193 S.C. 260; 7 S.E.2d 63, 192 S.C. 429, 128 A.L.R. 743; 5 S.E.2d 187, 192 S.C. 12. As to allowing ofamendment to affidavit of service in instant case being withindiscretion of Trial Judge: 38 S.E.2d 255, 208 S.C. 421. As to proceedings of a court without jurisdiction beinga nullity: 195 S.E. 253, 186 S.C. 125; 176 S.E. 711, 173 S.C. 527. October 12, 1953.