Spillers v. Stevens, 56 S.E. 238 (S.C. 1907). · Go Syfert
Search
Spillers v. Stevens, 56 S.E. 238 (S.C. 1907). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
2 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Brown v. Woodring (pamd, 1959-07-02)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Brown v. Woodring
M.D. Penn. · 1959 · confidence medium
While some judges give different emphasis to the various factors, and § 1404 *648 (a) is running into the impact of judges’ subjective tests in applying the standards ordered by the statute, see General Felt Products Co. v. Allen Industries Inc., supra, 120 F.Supp. at pages 492, 493, and other courts in interpreting the section have approached it with a different attitude and different standards, see dissent Norwood v. Kirkpatrick, supra, 349 U.S. at pages 35, 36, 75 S.Ct. at page 548, 99 L.Ed. 789 , citing cases, upon full consideration of all the facts here present 11 the court has conclu…
Spillers
v.
Stevens.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Jan 4, 1907.
56 S.E. 238
Mr. Jno. K. Hamlin , for appellant (no citations). Messrs. J.A. Sawyer and W.W. Johnson , contra. Mr. Sawyer cites: Decree will not be reversed for admission of incompetent evidence if there be other competent evidence sufficient to support decree: 75 S.C. 197 ; 36 S.C. 216 ; 61 S.C. 232 . Burden of proof in such cases: 54 S.C. 191 ; 31 S.C. 276 . This Court will not overrule findings below on doubtful questions: 16 S.C. 343 . Inadequacy of price does not show that deed was a mortgage: 52 S.C. 59 ; 55 S.C. 52 .
Gary.
Published

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Gary.

This action was brought for the purpose of having an instrument of writing purporting on its face to be an absolute conveyance of land, declared a mortgage. All the issues of law and fact were referred to the master for Union County, who made his report finding that the instrument of writing was intended, as an absolute conveyance, and not as a mortgage.

Upon hearing exceptions to said report, it was confirmed, whereupon the plaintiff appealed to' this Court, assigning error on the part of his Honor, the Circuit Judge, in his findings of fact.

Not only has the appellant failed to satisfy this Court, that the Circuit Judge erred in his findings of fact, but after careful consideration we have reached the coñclusion that his findings are clearly sustained by the preponderance of the testimony.

As there are no' questions of law involved, we do not deem it 'necessary to discuss the questions presented by the exceptions at greater length.

It is the judgment of this Court, that the judgment of the Circuit Court be affirmed.