45 S.C. 57 | S.C. | 1895
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
This action was commenced on the 20th day of June, 1893, in the Court of Common Pleas for Anderson County, and came on for trial before his Honor, Judge Watts, at the fall, 1894, term of said Court. The decree was filed on the 12th November, 1894. Whereupon the defendant, H. C. Summers, appealed, upon the three grounds as follows:
First. Because his Honor erred in confirming the report of the master, when he should have reversed the finding of the master, that “the bill of sale from Price to Summers, coupled with, the subsequent acts and conduct of the parties, establishes a mercantile partnership between them;” when he should have decided that the bill of sale from Price to Summers did not establish a partnership between them, and that the subsequent acts of the defendant, H. C. Summers, did not make him a partner of James A. Price.
Second. Because his Honor erred in sustaining the report of the master, who decided “that the mortgages executed to the Bank of Pendleton were valid mortgages, and, under the facts, constituted a first lien upon both stocks of goods embraced therein;” when he should have decreed that the stock of goods at Pendleton should be first applied to the payment of said mortgages.
Third. Because his Honor erred in ordering J. H. Payne to turn over to Julia M. Price all original books of accounts and all other choses in action, together with all moneys collected thereon since the action was begun, belonging to James A. Price & Co., heretofore conducted at Calhoun, S. C.; when he should have held that there was no partnership between James A. Price and H. C. Summers; the goods at Calhoun, bought by Summers, were not liable for the debts of James A. Price & Co., or James A. Price.
The second exception cannot be considered by us. When the master made his report, the said Summers excepted thereto, on the following grounds:
First. Because the master erred in deciding as a matter of law that “the bill of sale from Price to Summers, coupled with the subsequent acts and conduct of the parties, established a mercantile partnership between them.”
Second. Because the master omitted to report the admitted claim of E. H. Shanklin, as assignee, which should be paid.
Third. Because the report of the master is, in other respects, contrary to the law and the evidence.
It is the judgment of this Court, that the judgment of the Circuit Court be affirmed.