Case Name: ENTERPRISE BANK ET AL. v. RICE ET AL.
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1925-07-30
Citations: 132 S.C. 158
Docket Number: 11815
Parties: ENTERPRISE BANK ET AL. v. RICE ET AL.
Judges: Mr. Chiee Justice Gary and Mr. Acting Associate Justice R. O. Purdy concur.
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 132
Pages: 158–168

Head Matter:
11815
ENTERPRISE BANK ET AL. v. RICE ET AL.
(128 S. E., 872)
Messrs. Miller, Huger, Wilbur & Miller for appellants.
Messrs. Waring & Brockinton, for respondents,
July 30, 1925.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Watts.
This action was commenced by the service of summons and complaint in the Court of Common Pleas, Colleton County, in April of 1923. The plaintiff sought to foreclose two mortgages given by the defendant, Jennie M. Rice, for $5,000 and $2,500, respectively, which were owned at the time of the commencement of this action and held by the plaintiff Enterprise Bank. The defendant, Brick House Plantation, Inc., purchased a part of the property covered by the lien of the said mortgages from the defendant, Jennie M. Rice, and is, therefore, made party to this action. The case was referred by consent to E. K. Myers, one of the Masters of Charleston County, who found for the plaintiff. The matter came on to be heard before his Honor, J. Henry Johnson, presiding Judge, at Walterboro, S. C., on the-day of-, 1924, upon exceptions filed by the defendant's to the Master's report. From the order of his Honor, Judge Johnson, confirming the Master's report, the defendants appeal to the Supreme Court.
The exceptions, four in number, raise the sole question, one of law, involving the legal effect of the tender by Mrs. Rice, under the circumstances. Under the opinion of this Court (Guerin v. Hunt, 118 S. C., 32; 110 S. E., 71), Miss Hunt was entitled to the estate when she became of age. She became of age in August, 1921. The executor signed the pledge agreement in November, 1921, for one year.
We think that the rights of the parties in this case are unaffected by the executor's pledge; that the transaction sought to be enforced here did not in terms violate the depositors' "pledge", even if we should hold it to be binding upon the beneficiary of the pledged funds; there is no doubt that the pledge expired November 10, 1922, at which time the appellants' tender was still open.
We think that the Master's finding, sustained by the Circuit Judge, "that the right of Florence G. Hunt, as beneficiary of the estate of A. M. Hunt, to question the validity of the pledge of the funds of the estate of A. M. Hunt in the Enterprise Bank, was waived under the circumstances of this case," was erroneous. To affirm the judgment would be contrary to the principles 'of equity and would work a great hardship on the appellants.
All exceptions are sustained, and judgment reversed.
Mr. Chiee Justice Gary and Mr. Acting Associate Justice R. O. Purdy concur.