case comes within principle in South Carolina

1908Having reached the conclusion that the money, when received by the petitioner, was free from a trust, the case comes within the principle announced by Mr. Justice Woods, in Livingstain v. Banking Co. , 77 S.C. 305 , 57 S.E., 182 : "Had the check been issued for cash paid into the bank, or before insolvency, the other depositors could have interposed no countervailing equity, and the petitioners would have been subject to subrogation." It is the judgment of this Court that the judgment of the Circuit Court be reversed and the case remanded for such proceedings as may be necessary to carry into

1908Plaving reached the conclusion that the money, when received by the petitioner, was free from a trust, the case comes within the principle announced by Mr. Justice Woods, in Livingstain v. Banking Co., 77 S. C., 305, 57 S. E., 182 : “Had the check been issued for cash paid into the bank, or before insolvency, the other depositors could' have interposed no countervailing equity, and the petitioners would have been subject to subrogation.” It is the judgment of this Court that the judgment of the Circuit Court be reversed and the case remanded for such proceedings as may be necessary to carry in

1936Justice Baker (concurring in result) : I concur in the result of the opinion written by Mr. Justice Fish-burne, as I do not consider this case comes within the doctrine of common enterprise as set forth by the writer hereof in Lusk v. State Highway Department, 181 S. C., 101, 186 S. E., 786 .

1928The authorities sustain-the proposition that they cannot be united where they seek separate recoveries, and where, if separately instituted, a case of election of remedies would be presented.” See, also, Wright v. Willoughby, 79 S. C., 438, 60 S. E., 971 ; Du Bose v. Kell, 72 S. C., 208, 51 S. E., 692 .

1928The case comes within the principle announced in Walker v. McDonald, 136 S. C., 231; 134 S. E., 222 : “Instances may occur, .however, where inconsistent causes of action may be united in the same complaint where only one recovery is sought and the pleader is uncertain what the evidence may disclose.

1928The authorities sustain-the proposition that they cannot be united where they seek separate recoveries, and where, if separately instituted, a case of election of remedies would be presented.” See, also, Wright v. Willoughby, 79 S. C., 438, 60 S. E., 971 ; Du Bose v. Kell, 72 S. C., 208, 51 S. E., 692 .

1906Co., 45 S. C., 363, 89, 23 S. E., 143 ; Lanahan v. Bailey, 53 S. C., 498; 31 S. E., 332 ; Garvin v. Garvin, 55 S. C., 560, 33 S. E., 458 ; Pierson v. Green, 69 S. C., 559; State v. Robinson, 70 S. C., 468, 50 S. E., 192 .

1906Co., 45 S. C., 363, 89, 23 S. E., 143 ; Lanahan v. Bailey, 53 S. C., 498; 31 S. E., 332 ; Garvin v. Garvin, 55 S. C., 560, 33 S. E., 458 ; Pierson v. Green, 69 S. C., 559; State v. Robinson, 70 S. C., 468, 50 S. E., 192 .

1906Co., 45 S. C., 363, 89, 23 S. E., 143 ; Lanahan v. Bailey, 53 S. C., 498; 31 S. E., 332 ; Garvin v. Garvin, 55 S. C., 560, 33 S. E., 458 ; Pierson v. Green, 69 S. C., 559; State v. Robinson, 70 S. C., 468, 50 S. E., 192 .

1906Co., 45 S. C., 363, 89, 23 S. E., 143 ; Lanahan v. Bailey, 53 S. C., 498; 31 S. E., 332 ; Garvin v. Garvin, 55 S. C., 560, 33 S. E., 458 ; Pierson v. Green, 69 S. C., 559; State v. Robinson, 70 S. C., 468, 50 S. E., 192 .

1903This case comes within the principle announced in Adkins v. Moore, 43 S. C., 173, 20 S. E., 985 , in which the Court says: “The defendants were entitled to full twenty days from the time of service of the complaint till the day therein fixed for trial, and as they were required to appear on the twentieth day from the service thereof, the time was shorter than that required by law.” It is true, section 407 of the Code provides that “the time within which an act is to be done, as herein provided, shall be computed by excluding the first day and including the last,” but this was not a case in whi