Bell, Prob. Judge v. MacKey, 3 S.E.2d 816 (S.C. 1939). · Go Syfert
Search
Bell, Prob. Judge v. MacKey, 3 S.E.2d 816 (S.C. 1939). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 4× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2008 · …the nature of the issues as raised by the pleadings or the pleadings and proof, and character of relief sought under them, determines the character of an action as legal or equitable. at p. 824 ⚠ not in text
54 citation events (24 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Bennett v. Estate of James Kelly King (sc, 2022-06-15)
Treatment trajectory · 1941 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1941 1983 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Bennett v. Estate of James Kelly King (2×) also: Cited as authority (quoted)
S.C. · 2022 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence high
he nature of the issues as raised by the pleadings or the pleadings and proof, and character of relief sought under them, determines the character of an action as legal or equitable.
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Lowcountry Open Land Trust v. Charleston Southern University (2×) also: Cited as authority (quoted)
S.C. Ct. App. · 2008 · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence high
the nature of the issues as raised by the pleadings or the pleadings and proof, and character of relief sought under them, determines the character of an action as legal or equitable.
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Rim Associates v. Blackwell (2×) also: Cited as authority (quoted)
S.C. Ct. App. · 2004 · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence high
the nature of the issues as raised by the pleadings or the pleadings and proof, and character of relief sought under them, determines the character of an action as legal or equitable.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Quarter Pointe Ventures v. Lineberger
S.C. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
Generally, "the essential character of the cause of action, and the remedy or relief it seeks, as shown by the allegations of the complaint, determine whether a particular action is at law or in equity, unaffected by the conclusions of the pleader or by what the pleader calls it, or the prayer for relief." Bell v. Mackey, 191 S.C. 105 , 3 S.E.2d 816, 822 (1939).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Wells Fargo v. Smith
S.C. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
Bell v. Mackey, 191 S.C. 105 , 119-20, 3 S.E.2d 816, 822 (1939) (citations omitted).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Smith
S.C. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
Bell v. Mackey, 191 S.C. 105 , 119-20, 3 S.E.2d 816, 822 (1939) (citations omitted).
cited Cited as authority (rule) King v. James
S.C. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
Bell v. Mackey, 191 S.C. 105 , 109, 3 S.E.2d 816, 824 (1939).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Verenes v. Alvanos
S.C. · 2010 · confidence medium
Bell v. Mackey, 191 S.C. 105 , 119-20, 3 S.E.2d 816, 822 (1939) (citations omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Willcox v. Stroup
D.S.C. · 2006 · confidence medium
Staleness Under South Carolina law, a stale demand is “one that has for a long time remained unasserted; one that is first asserted after an unexplained delay of such great length as to render it difficult or impossible for the court to ascertain the truth of the matters in controversy and to do justice between the parties, or as to create a presumption against the existence or validity of the claim, or a presumption that it has been abandoned or satisfied.” Presbyterian Church v. Pendarvis, 227 S.C. 50 , 86 S.E.2d 740, 744 (quoting Bell v. Mackey, 191 S.C. 105 , 123, 3 S.E.2d 816, 824 (19…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) All Saints Parish v. Protestant Episcopal Church in Diocese
S.C. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
A stale demand is “ ‘one that has for a long time remained unasserted; one that is first asserted after an unexplained delay of such great length as to render it difficult or impossible for the court to ascertain the truth of the matters in controversy and to do justice between the parties, or as to create a presumption against the existence or validity of the claim, or a presumption that it has been abandoned or satisfied.’ ” Pendarvis, 227 S.C. at 59 , 86 S.E.2d at 744 (quoting Bell v. Mackey, 191 S.C. 105 , 123, 3 S.E.2d 816, 824 (1939)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Weiner v. Board of Registration of Psychologists
Mass. · 1993 · confidence medium
The delay may be so long that under the circumstances many of the important facts have become obscured.’ Bell v. Mackey, 191 S.C. 105 , 3 S.E. 2d 816, 824, 825 [1939].
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Crewe v. Blackmon
S.C. Ct. App. · 1986 · confidence medium
We agree. “[I]t may be said that the essential character of the cause of action, and the remedy or relief it seeks, as shown by the allegations in the complaint, determine whether a particular action is at law or in equity....” Rogers v. Nation, 284 S. C. 330, 332, 326 S. E. (2d) 182, 183 (Ct. App. 1985) (quoting Bell v. Mackey, 191 S. C. 105, 119, 3 S. E. (2d) 816, 822 (1939)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rogers v. Nation Ex Rel. Clayton
S.C. Ct. App. · 1985 · confidence medium
The criteria for making the determination is stated in the case of Bell v. Mackey, 191 S. C. 105, 119, 3 S. E. (2d) 816, 822 (1939): Generally ... it may be said that the essential character of the cause of action, and the remedy or relief it seeks, as shown by the allegations of the complaint, determine whether a particular action is at law or in equity, unaffected by the conclusions of the pleader or by what the pleader calls it, or the prayer for relief, or the nature of the defense interposed, or new matter stated in the reply, or whether the action is statutory or otherwise.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Finch v. Fitzpatrick
Fla. · 1971 · confidence medium
See Carroll v. Wright, 131 Ga. 728 , 63 S.E. 260, 267 (1908); Bell v. Mackey, 191 S.C. 105 , 3 S.E.2d 816, 831 (1939); Clopton v. Scharrenberg, 106 Cal. App.2d 430 , 235 P.2d 84, 88 (1951); In re Rosenstein's Estate, Sur., 124 N.Y.S.2d 783 (1953); McGinness v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 177 Pa.Super. 104 , 110 A.2d 918, 920 (1955); Newman v. Borough of Fairlawn, Bergen County, 31 N.J. 279 , 157 A.2d 314 (1960); State ex rel.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Thomerson v. DeVito (2×)
S.C. · 2020 · signal: see also · confidence low
Co., 378 S.C. 25 , 29–30, 661 S.E.2d 349 , 351–52 (2008) (stating the primary purpose in interpreting statutes is to ascertain the intent of the General Assembly and if the plain reading of a statute lends itself equally to two logical interpretations, the Court must apply the rules of statutory interpretation to discover the General Assembly's intent); see also Bell v. Mackey, 191 S.C. 105 , 114–15, 3 S.E.2d 816 , 820–21 (1939) (observing while there is now but one form of action, a civil action, this change has not altered the inherent distinctions between causes of action as legal o…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Bell, Probate Judge
v.
MacKey
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Jul 12, 1939.
3 S.E.2d 816
Messrs. Gregory Gregory , for appellant, cite: Action for breach of administrator's bond is action at law: 132 S.C. 45 ; 128 S.E., 40 ; 1 S.E.2d 502 ; 192 S.E., 153 . Equitable estoppel: 21 C.J., 1119; 137 S.E., 684 ; 97 S.C. 116 ; 10 R.C.L., 395. Statute of Limitations: 158 U.S. 416 ; 39 L.Ed., 1036 ; 11 Rich. Eq., 33; 1 C.J., 1153; 128 S.E., 40 ; 79 S.C. 473 ; 17 S.C. 558 ; 28 S.C. 280 ; 2 Rich., 140; 1 Rich. Eq., 121; 40 F.2d 269 ; 55 S.C. 9 ; 26 S.C. 179 ; 179 S.E., 671 ; 1 Hill Eq., 62; 3 Strob. Eq., 136. Failure of administrator to file return: 150 S.E., 693 ; 62 C.J., 964; 11 S.C. 139 . Messrs. Williams Stewart and Sloan Sloan , for respondents, cite: Construction of pleadings: 184 S.C. 195 ; 1 C.J.S., 54; 176 S.C. 207 ; 180 S.E., 13 ; 45 S.C. 111 ; 12 S.C. 97 ; 14 S.C. 112 ; 18 S.C. 222 . Equitable defenses: 14 S.C. 112 ; 134 S.C. 373 ; 144 S.C. 137 ; 121 S.C. 464 ; 160 S.C. 307 ; 171 S.C. 162 ; 4 S.C. 48 ; 12 S.C. 97 ; 44 S.C. 444 ; 54 S.C. 155 ; 79 S.C. 473 ; 93 S.C. 352 ; 98 S.C. 289 ; 109 S.C. 358 ; 158 S.C. 133 ; 156 S.C. 109 ; 181 S.C. 84 ; 187 S.C. 89 . Laches: 138 S.C. 86 ; 157 S.C. 297 ; 43 S.C. 436 ; 105 S.C. 310 ; 97 S.E., 314 ; 138 S.C. 86 ; 11 Rich. Eq., 368; 14 Rich. Eq., 92; 4 Rich. Eq., 349; 33 C.J., 239; 110 U.S. 174 ; 28 L.Ed., 109 ; 135 U.S. 271 ; 34 L.Ed., 112 . As to interest on claim: 187 S.C. 398 ; 57 S.E., 36 ; 60 S.C. 272 ; 74 S.C. 486 ; 83 S.C. 157 ; 169 S.C. 263 ; 107 S.C. 336 ; 125 S.C. 317 ; 155 S.C. 60 ; 187 S.C. 50 .
MR. JUSTICE BONHAM..
2 passages pin-cited by 3 cases
Pinpoint authority: bottom 92%
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of South Caro… (2) · Supreme Court of South Carolina (1)

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 107 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 108 July 12, 1939. The opinion of the Court was delivered by The facts which make the issues in this intricate and intering case are fully set out in the able, well-considered *Page 145 and comprehensive decree of Judge Featherstone, who heard the case on circuit, and will not be reproduced here. The decree is satisfactory to the Court, and might well have been left to stand upon the conclusions stated on page 55 of the Record. However, the Circuit Judge says there: "While the Court would prefer to rest the disposition of the entire case on these grounds, it feels it necessary and advisable to comment upon and dispose of the other issues which are raised and proceeds so to do." Accordingly, we follow him in his consideration of these issues.

The first is the matter of interest which the plaintiff seeks to claim from the date of the first return up to the commencement of the action on February 5, 1937. We concur with the Circuit Judge that this claim of interest is disbarred on the grounds of laches and equitable estoppel. See the authorities cited in the decree.

As to the commissions being properly credited in favor of the administrator, we think the Circuit Judge has properly construed and applied Section 3648 of the Civil Code of 1912, under which the question falls.

As to the administrator and the surety being allowed credit for rentals and receipts from real estate, the appellant contends as follows: "* * * If the Court is justified in concluding that the items referred to above represented crops grown by sharecroppers on lands of the estate, it must likewise, to be consistent, find that that portion of the return which shows items of expenditure which might be applicable to farming operations would in fact represent estate funds used by the administrator to carry on farming operations."

Such conclusion would be only an assumption. The administrator had no authority to carry on farming operations on the lands of the intestate's estate. There is no showing of any order of the Probate Court giving him power to carry on such farming operations. *Page 146 Moreover, this would be an issue between the administrator and the heirs-at-law of the intestate.

In October, 1918, Mary M. Lazenby and other Lazenby heirs, as plaintiffs, instituted an action in the Court of Common Pleas for Lancaster County against R.B. Mackey, as administrator and other Lazenby heirs, for partition and sale of real estate in aid of assets. A material portion of the record is missing. The record contains an answer filed by the Lazenby defendants dated November 6, 1918, alleging that Mackey, as administrator, had received the proceeds of the personal estate and had made no accounting, and praying that he be made to account.

It is a natural conclusion that this issue was involved in the case. Judge Memminger made an order referring all issues of law and of fact to Paul Moore, Clerk of Court. There is no final decree or order in the case appearing in the record, and the referee is incapable of giving any information about the case. In such circumstances we think the Circuit Judge has arrived at a correct conclusion of this matter.

As to the credit claimed by the surety on account of premium, we agree with the Circuit Decree that the surety is not entitled thereto, for, as said by the decree: "* * * If there was a breach of the bond in this case, it occurred prior to the date of the period which it is sought to have the premiums credited."

Respondents, in their brief, seek to set up "additional sustaining grounds". But these are not properly presented in accordance with the provisions of the appropriate rules of Court, and, therefore, are not considered.

The exceptions are overruled. The judgment is affirmed.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STABLER and MR. JUSTICE FISHRURNE and MR. ACTING ASSOCIATE JUSTICE WM. H. GRIMBALL concur.

MR. JUSTICE CARTER did not participate on account of illness. *Page 147