History
  • No items yet
midpage
George H. Hurst & Sons v. Rhame
130 S.C. 367
S.C.
1925
Check Treatment

January 13, 1925. The opinion of the Court was delivered by The sole point in this appeal is whether the funeral expenses of an intestate have priority, under Section 5409, Code of 1922, over chattel mortgages, in the distribution of the proceeds of the sale of such chattels by an administrator.

The question is definitely determined in the negative by the cases hereinafter cited, which hold that the order of *Page 368 payment of debts by an administrator, prescribed by said section, refer only to such assets, in the hands of the administrator, as remain after the satisfaction of the liens which existed at the death of the intestate: Rutledge v.Hazlehurst, 1 McCord, Eq., 466. Keckley v. Keckley, 2 Hill, Eq., 257. Haynsworth v. Frierson, 11 Rich., 476. Kinslerv. Holmes, 2 S.C. 483. Edwards v. Sanders, 6 S.C. 316.Baxter v. Baxter, 23 S.C. 114. DeLoach v. Sarratt,58 S.C. 117; 36 S.E., 532.

The order appealed from is, accordingly, affirmed.

MESSRS. JUSTICES WATTS, FRASER and MARION concur.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE GARY did not participate.

Case Details

Case Name: George H. Hurst & Sons v. Rhame
Court Name: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Date Published: Jan 13, 1925
Citation: 130 S.C. 367
Docket Number: 11664
Court Abbreviation: S.C.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.