Treatment trajectory · 1919 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1919
1972
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sutherland v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Inc.
Moreover, “[a] party cannot escape the application of this rule by claiming ignorance of existing facts and circumstances, because the law also provides that if such facts and circumstances could have been known to the party through the exercise of ordinary care and reasonable diligence, the same result follows.” Burgess, 300 S.C. at 185 , 386 S.E.2d at 799 (citing Tucker v. Weathersbee, 98 S.C. 402 , 408–09, 82 S.E. 638, 640 (1914)) (emphasis in original).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
National Bank of Savannah v. All
Counsel for appellants insists that this case comes within the purview of section 137, vol. 2, subdivision 6, of the Code of 1912, which is in the following language: ■ “Any action for relief on tbe ground of fraud, in cases wbicb heretofore were solely cognizable by the Court of Chancery, the cause of action in such case not to be .deemed to have accrued until the discovery by the aggrieved party of the facia constituting the fraud.” This being a suit for cancellation of a deed, it comes clearly within the provision “solely cognizable by the Court of Chancery.” Furthermore, it is �…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Tucker
v.
Weathersbee
v.
Weathersbee
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Aug 13, 1914.
Mr. G.M. Greene , for appellant, submits: Burden of proof was shifted to wife to show that property conveyed to her was paid for with funds belonging to her separate estate: 1 Moore, Fraud. Conv., p. 39, sec. 6; 94 U.S. 580 ; 27 S.C. 425 . Grantee knew of her husband's intent in making conveyances: Bump. Fraud. Conv. (4th ed.), sec. 2; 2 Bail. 324; 1 Hill 380; 97 S.C. 31 . Burden also on grantee to show that creditor had notice of facts to put him on notice more than six years before action: 8 Rich. Eq. 155; Smith on Frauds, sec. 87; 101 U.S. 135 ; 44 S.C. 381 . Evidence of grantee's knowledge of fraud: ; Smith on Frauds, sec. 249.
Messrs. Hendersons and Bates Simms , for respondents, cite: As to limitation of action: 77 S.C. 541; 101 U.S. 135 . Laches: McM. Eq. 134; 24 S.C. 99 ; 21 S.C. 124 ; 93 U.S. 55 .
MR. JUSTICE GAGE..
Published
August 13, 1914. The opinion of the Court was delivered by The decree of the Circuit Court herein is full and comprehensive.
The appellants have failed to shake it. For the reasons therein stated that judgment is affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE FRASER concurs in the result.