The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1911-01-11
Opinion by Justice Woods:

Opinion by Justice Woods:
The trust deed executed by w. A.
Bowman and the Sumter Banking
and Mercantile company to r. 1.
Manning and others, as trustees for
creditors. could hardly have been more
complex and difficult to understand.
Careful consideration leads me to the
conclusion reached by Justice Gary:
CD That the debtors were insol-
vent when the deed was executed;
(2) that the intention was to convey
the entire property of w. A. Bow
man. as we'll as that Of the Sumter
Banking and Mercantile company;
(3) that the deed contemplated the
payment Of the creditors mentioned
In the deed to the exclusion Of other
creditors. and (4) that it provided for
the return Of the surplus Of the prop
erty to the debtors instead Of its ap-
plication in the claims Of other credi-
tors not mentioned In the deed. I'm
der this state Of facts it inevitably
follows as conclusion of law that
the deed was voidable at the instance
Of creditors not provided for because
obnoxious, both to the assignment act
and to the statute Of Elizabeth. Jacot
VS.. Corbett. Cheves Equity. II; Stu
art VS.. Harrison, 3 s. c., 266; Claflin
VS.. Iseman. 23 8. c., 416.
In reaching this conclusion notice
should be taken Of the following pro-
vision appearing in the deed as the
Gath clause
THAT the trustees shall apply the
proceeds OF sale and collections from
the individual property Of W. A. Bow
man only to the payment Of the indi-
vidual debts and obligations Of the
said w. A. Bowman, including his
Endorsements and guarantees"
II this stood alone it coluld we'll be
construed as providing for a ratable
distribution to all the creditors Of w.
A. Bowman, but this construction
would be inconsistent with and en-
tirely defeat the 18th clause which
provides that after the creditors spe-
cially mentioned in the deed have
been paid. the surplus shall be paid
over to the debtors. If the two clauses
are to be construed together and both
given effect then "the individual debts
and obligations OF the said w. A.
Bowman" mentioned In the latter
clause must be held to refer only to
those debts and obligations mention
cd In the 18th clause. II the two
clauses are to be regarded absolutely
irreconcilable then that which ap-
pears first In the deed and provides
that the debtors and not the creditors
'hall receive the surplus in the hands
OF the trustees must be given effect in
preference to that which Is after
ward written. 1t Is, however. but
just to the parties interested to say
that they made an offer to the
plaintiff that he should come In and
have the benef1t Of the terms Of the
deed as II the Gath clause of the deed
stood alone. unlimited by the 18th
clause, and the circuit Judge held that
he could yet come In and receive all
the benefits Of the deed OF trust.
There was no exception to this flnd-
ing.
notwithstanding the conclusion
that the deed was voidable under the
statute Of Elizabeth and the assign
ment statute, it seems to me clear
that the plaintiff is estopped from at
tacking the transaction. The suit
Is at the instance Of the plaintiff alone
and for himself and other creditors,
and If there be other creditors Of w.
"A. Bowman, the record does not dis
close that any Of them have complain
ed or sought to set aside the deed
Therefore If the plaintiff has taken
action which makes it inequitabIe
that he should be heard to attack
the deed the case is at an end.
ON the subject of cstoppel the cir
cult judge said In his decree "I
have not considered the circumstances
that the plaintiff, as president OF a
corporation, signed the deed Of trust
for his corporation as one OF the
principal creditors. / do not think
1t necessary to decide upon the legal
effect OF such an act; but its moral
force Is Of consequence when Il chan
COLOR comes u ask himself In the