DuPont v. S. Nat'l Bank, 342 S.E.2d 590 (S.C. 1986). · Go Syfert
Search
DuPont v. S. Nat'l Bank, 342 S.E.2d 590 (S.C. 1986). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
2 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: In Re Estate of Holden (sc, 2000-11-27)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In Re Estate of Holden (2×)
S.C. · 2000 · signal: see also · confidence low
Smith Companies of Greenville, Inc. v. Hayes, 311 S.C. 358 , 428 S.E.2d 900 (Ct.App.1993) (action for cancellation of instrument is action in equity); see also DuPont v. Southern Nat’l Bank of Houston, 288 S.C. 312 , 342 S.E.2d 590 (1986) (action alleging mistake is action in equity). “[E]quitable relief is available where the parties acted under a mistake of fact going to the essence of the particular *279 transaction, but not if the mistake was one of law.” 27A Am.Jur.2d Equity § 7 (1996); Smothers v. U.S. Fidelity and Guar.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Eugene DUPONT, III
v.
SOUTHERN NATIONAL BANK OF HOUSTON, TEXAS, Trustee, Edward J. Brady, Trustee, John H. Garner, Trustee, Eugene duPont, IV, a Minor, Margaret Irene Jones, Daphne Burma Vaughan, Leslie Dudley Myrin, Genette Lee duPont, a Minor, John duPont Waters, Virginia Irene Waters, Benjamin Franklin Vaughan, IV, Cuthbert Lata Myrin, Jr., a Minor, and Mimi duPont Myrin, a Minor, of whom Southern National Bank of Houston, Texas, Trustee, Edward J. Brady, Trustee, John H. Garner, Trustee, and Eugene duPont, IV, are
22515.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Mar 31, 1986.
342 S.E.2d 590
James H. Moss and H. Fred Kuhn, Jr., of Moss, Bailey & Dore, Beaufort, and Robert A. Gwinn, of Johnson, Bromberg & Leeds, Dallas, Tex., for appellants Southern Nat. Bank, Houston, Tex., Edward J. Brady and John H. Garner., Henry B. Smythe and David B. McCormick, of Buist, Moore, Smythe & McGee, Charleston, for appellant Eugene duPont, IV., Colden R. Battey, Jr., of Harvey & Battey, Beaufort, for respondent.
Chandler, Finney, Gregory, Harwell, Ness.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
Gregory, Justice:

Respondent commenced this action to set aside several[*313] deeds alleging mistake in conveyances to a trust.[1] Appellants moved for the case to be transferred to the jury roster. This appeal is from the denial of that motion. We affirm.

In an action to set aside a deed, a party’s right to a jury trial is determined by whether the dispute raises legal or equitable issues. Union Central Life Ins. Co. v. Crouch, 189 S. C. 57, 200 S. E. 356 (1938). Respondent’s complaint, although poorly drafted, raises a simple question — whether respondent was mistaken in his conveyances to the trust. This Court, through long-established precedent, has recognized that an action alleging mistake is in equity. See Turner v. Washington Realty Co., 128 S. C. 271, 122 S. E. 768 (1924).[2] Therefore, the trial judge properly denied appellants’ motion.

Affirmed.

Ness, C. J., and Harwell, Chandler and Finney, JJ., concur.
1

The complaint was drawn with three causes of action; however, all three essentially allege mistake in the conveyances.

2

Turner addressed the propriety of relief in an action based on mistake; however, it is clear that resolution of the issue in that case was dependent on a preliminary finding that the action was in equity.