Case Name: AGNES E. WILLIAMS, ADMINISTRATRIX, D. B. N., OF ESTATE OF LEWIS E. WILLIAMS, DECEASED, APPELLANT, V. SUZANNE CARROLL SLATER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTRIX OF WILL OF JOHN D. SLATER, DECEASED, A. G. ROGERS AND HIGGIN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, OF WHOM A. G. ROGERS AND HIGGIN MANUFACTURING COMPANY ARE APPELLANTS, AND SUZANNE CARROLL SLATER, ETC., IS RESPONDENT
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1949-03-07
Citations: 214 S.C. 317
Docket Number: 16191
Parties: AGNES E. WILLIAMS, ADMINISTRATRIX, D. B. N., OF ESTATE OF LEWIS E. WILLIAMS, DECEASED, APPELLANT, V. SUZANNE CARROLL SLATER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTRIX OF WILL OF JOHN D. SLATER, DECEASED, A. G. ROGERS AND HIGGIN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, OF WHOM A. G. ROGERS AND HIGGIN MANUFACTURING COMPANY ARE APPELLANTS, AND SUZANNE CARROLL SLATER, ETC., IS RESPONDENT.
Judges: Baker, C. J., and FishburnE, Stukes, Tayror, and OxNER, J.J., concur.
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 214
Pages: 317–319

Head Matter:
16191
AGNES E. WILLIAMS, ADMINISTRATRIX, D. B. N., OF ESTATE OF LEWIS E. WILLIAMS, DECEASED, APPELLANT, V. SUZANNE CARROLL SLATER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTRIX OF WILL OF JOHN D. SLATER, DECEASED, A. G. ROGERS AND HIGGIN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, OF WHOM A. G. ROGERS AND HIGGIN MANUFACTURING COMPANY ARE APPELLANTS, AND SUZANNE CARROLL SLATER, ETC., IS RESPONDENT.
Messrs. Moss & Moss and J. Stokes Salley, of Orange-burg, for Appellants,
Messrs. J. M. Brailsford, Jr., T. B. Bryant, Jr., and A. J. Hydrick, all of Orangeburg, for Respondent,
March 7, 1949.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This appeal is an áttack upon the soundness of two former decisions of this Court, namely, United States Rubber Co. v. McManus, 211 S. C. 342, 45 S. E. (2d) 335, and Hardee v. Lynch, 212 S. C. 6, 46 S. E. (2d) 179, which it is sought to overrule. They construed and applied Act No. 516 of 1946, 44 Stat. at Large, p. 1436, in such manner as to thwart the purpose of appellant's proceeding, commenced in December 1947, which is for leave to bring an action looking to'the collection from debtor's estate of a money judgment over twenty years old, revived in 1936. The lower court refused relief upon the authority of the cited decisions..
Upon careful review of them in the light of appellant's earnest argument, we are satisfied that they were correctly decided and see no necessity to attempt tó add to the reasoning and authorities which the opinions contain. Hence, appellant's exceptions in this case must be overruled.
Affirmed.
Baker, C. J., and FishburnE, Stukes, Tayror, and OxNER, J.J., concur.