Case Name: EX PARTE J. L. WILLIAMS, JR. IN RE ESTATE OF JAMES WILLIAMS
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1914-07-16
Citations: 98 S.C. 211
Docket Number: 8885
Parties: EX PARTE J. L. WILLIAMS, JR. IN RE ESTATE OF JAMES WILLIAMS.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 98
Pages: 211–212

Head Matter:
8885
EX PARTE J. L. WILLIAMS, JR. IN RE ESTATE OF JAMES WILLIAMS.
(82 S. E. 402.)
Appeal and Error. Grant op Administration. Issues.
1. Where an appellant from the judgment of the prohate Court fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 28 of the Circuit Court, by giving- notice of motion for submission of issues to a jury, his exception on the ground that the Circuit Judge refused to submit such issues to a jury will be overruled.
2. Finding's of fact by the probate Court concurred in by the Circuit-Court as to the person who should administer upon an estate will not be disturbed on appeal.
Before C. J. Ramage, special Judge, St. Matthews, December, 1913.
Affirmed.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Mr. Jacob Moorer, for appellant,
submits: Appellant was entitled to jury trial of issues: Code Civil Proc., secs. 312, 326; 61 S. C. 568-569; 55 S. C. 198; 98 S. C. 271; 64 S. C. 234. Widow cannot transfer right to administer to another, 2 Strob. 335, against wish of the largest creditor: 2 Hill. 347; Rice 287.
July 16, 1914.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Watts.
.This is an appeal from an order of Special Judge Ramage in affirming the judgment of the probate Court in appointing J. W. Mahoney administrator of the estate of James Williams, deceased, instead of the appellant, J. R. Williams, Jr.
The exceptions allege error-on the part of the trial Judge in not submitting issues to the jury-as asked for on the part of the appellant, as to the question of marriage of the deceased to two women, and which one was his lawful wife, and who were his legitimate children. The exceptions are overruled for the reason that the appellant failed to comply with rule 28 of the Circuit Court; and we have a concurrent finding of the probate Court and Circuit Court as to the facts involved and under the authority of Ex parte Smalls, 69 S. C. 43, 48 S. E. 40; Ex parte Frierson, 96 S. C. 34, 79 S. E. 791. Judgment is affirmed.