Case Name: BOOZER v. GUNTER ET AL.
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1923-12-18
Citations: 127 S.C. 141
Docket Number: 
Parties: BOOZER v. GUNTER ET AL.
Judges: Mr. Chiee Justice Gary and Mr. Justice Fraser concur.
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 127
Pages: 141–161

Head Matter:
BOOZER v. GUNTER ET AL.
(120 S. E., 749)
1. Appeal and Error — Appellant Has Borden of Showing Trial Court’s Finding Was Against Weight of Evidence. — It is incumbent upon the appellant to show that the finding of the Circuit Judge is contrary to the weight of the evidence, and, failing to do this, the judgment of the Circuit Court should he affirmed.
2. Mortgages — In Foreclosure Action, Evidence Held .to Sustain Trial Court’s Finding.- — In an action to foreclose a purchase-money mortgage, evidence held to sustain • trial Court’s finding as to amount due and that defendant was not entitled to an abatement for an alleged partial failure of consideration.
Before Townsend, J., Lexington, November, 1922.
Affirmed.
Action by T. J. Boozer v. Jerome R. Gunter et al. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant named appeals.
The Circuit Decree was as follows:
The plaintiff instituted this action in foreclosure in the Court of Common Pleas for Lexington County, March, 1921, against the defendants, Jerome R. Gunter, Bank-of Swansea, O. T. Wallace, J. L. Boozer, and M. F. Gunter, parties defendant in said action, and they claim some interest described in the complaint. The case was referred to H. L. Harmon, Esq., Clerk of Court of the said Lexington County, as Special Referee, to take the testimony in the case and report the same to the Court. The Referee held references and took the testimony, but before the completion of the testimony the defendant Jerome R. Gunter, by an order of Judge Sease, presiding Judge of the Court, was allowed to file his answer interposing his defense in the action.
The issues raised by the answers of the defendants Bates-burg Cotton Oil Company, Bank of Swansea, and O. T. Wallace were heard and disposed of at the 1922 March term of Court of Common Pleas for Lexington County, by Lion. Ernest Moore, presiding Judge, by his Decree, except that there appears to be a balance due, upon the note and mortgage of the defendant Bank of Swansea in the sum of $264.65, with interest thereon from the 18th day of April, 1922, which is herein found to be due the Bank of Swansea.
The defendant J. L. Boozer files an answer in this case alleging that he has or claims no interest in the premises described in the complaint, and defendant M. F. Gunter has defaulted, and under the testimony she appears to have no interest therein. All of the issues therefore have been disposd of except the answer and counterclaim of the defendant J. R. Gunter, dated October 25, 1921, and the balance due, the Bank of Swansea herein mentioned.
The case came up before me for a hearing at the November, 1922, term of the Court of Common Pleas for Lexington County upon the pleadings and testimony taken. I find from the testimony that the defendant Jerome R. Gunter on the 18th day of January, 1918, executed and delivered to the, plaintiff, T. J. Boozer, his five promissory notes in the sum of $500 each, payable in five equal, annual installments, from the 18th day of January, 1918, payable as follows: On or before the 18th day of January, 1919, $600; on or before the 18th day of January, 1920, $600; on or before January 18, 1921, $600; on or before 18th day of January, 1922, $600; and on or before the 18th day of January, 1923, $600 — with interest thereon from date at the rate of 8 per cent, per annum, payable annually, and 10 per cent, attorney’s fees in case of suit to collect the same or any part thereof. And in order to secure the payment of the said notes, the said J eróme R. Gunter and his wife, M. F. Gunter, renouncing her dower, executed and delivered to the plaintiff the mortgage covering the lands described at the foot of this decree. The mortgage contains a provision that the whole amount of the principal shall become due upon default of the payment of either installment. I find this mortgage to be a first lien, and is a purchase-money mortgage, upon the lands hereinafter described, and it appears from the testimony that one of the notes, to wit, the one falling due on January 18, 1919, has been paid, and there is now due and owing to the plaintiff, T. J. Boozer, on the remaining four notes, the sum of $3,283.20, principal and interest, and the sum of $328.32 as attorney’s fees, making a total of $3,611.52.
The defense and counterclaim of the defendant Jerome R. Gunter, set up in his answer, pleads a partial failure of consideration, in that he. alleges that a portion of the lands •conveyed to him by the grantor by deed dated 18th day of January, 1918, and described in the deed as a part of “the Old Uriah Jeffcoat mill site,” had been theretofore conveyed by the grantor to J. W. and Carrie Bell Blaine by deed dated 16th day of January, 1918, and another portion •of said mill site lay beyond the boundaries of the grantor’s lands, and belonged to one J. J. Mack, and that plaintiff had no title to such parts when he undertook to convey the mill site to said defendant.
The plaintiff contends that this plea cannot be sustained, first, for the reason that the defendant purchaser has not been evicted from the mill site purchased by him from the plaintiff by any one under title paramount, citing Diseker v. Land, & Improvement Co., 86 S. C., 284; 68 S. E., 529, and Moore v. Beard, 91 S. C. ,502; 74 S. E., 1062.
The plat of H. R. Schoenberg, surveyor, in evidence as Exhibits S and 10, is not shown to accurately locate the mill site, dam, and pond, and it does not clearly appear from the evidence that any part of the mill site, dam, or pond is within either the lands conveyed to the Blaines or owned by J. J. Mack. Hence the. defendant Gunter has not established by proof such facts as would under any circumstances entitle him to' a deduction from the purchase price he promised to pay. Adams v. Kibler, 7 S. C., 47. Mitchell v. Pinckney, 13 S. C., 203. Peake v. Renwick, 86 S. C., 226; 68 S. E., 531; 33 E. R. A. (N. S.), 409. Stone v. Stone, 113 S. C., 233; 101 S. E., 863. Both J. W. Blaine and Mack have testified as witnesses in this case, and neither of them claim any substantial interest in the, mill site conveyed by the plaintiff to Gunter. Even if a substantial outstanding claim by third parties should have been shown by the evidence,, it would, under authorites cited by the plaintiff’s counsel, be no defense to this action, as there has been no eviction of the defendant Gunter from the lands which plaintiff sold him.
The deed of T. J. Boozer to J. W. Blaine and Carrie Belle Blaine, is introduced in evidence, and the deed of T. J. Boozer to' J. R. Gunter is also introduced in evidence, and the Blaine deed was recorded on the 6th day of February, 1918, and the Boozer deed was recorded on the 19th day of January, 1918, one, day after its execution and delivery.
I so find from the evidence. For this reason I find and conclude that the plaintiff is entitled to foreclosure for the unpaid balance due on his said four notes and mortgage,.
Wherefore, it is ordered, considered, and adjudged that the plaintiff, T. J. Boozer, have judgment against the defendant J. R. Gunter for the sum of $3,611.52 and costs; and that the defendant Bank of Swansea have judgment against the defendant J. R. Gunter in this action for the sum of $264.65 and costs.
It is further ordered and adjudged that the premises hereinafter described be sold by the, Clerk of this Court before the courthouse door in Lexington County on the first Monday in February, 1923, or some subsequent convenient sales day thereafter, after due and legal advertisement upon the following terms, to- wit, for cash; that out of the proceeds of the said sale the Clerk shall first pay the costs and expenses of this action and any taxes that may be found to be due. on said premises, and then to pay to the said T. J. Boozer, or his attorney, the sum of money adjudged to be due him, and, next, to the Bank of Swansea or its attorney the amount adjudged to be due, it, and, if there should remain any of the proceeds of the sale after the payment of the judgment SO' found to be due, the said T. J. Boozer and Bank of Swansea, he shall pay the same to the defendant J. R. Gunter; that the said mortgages be foreclosed, the equity of redemption of the said Jerome R. Gunter in and to the aforesaid premises, and all persons claiming by, through, or under him, is hereby forever barred; that upon compliance with the terms of sale the said Clerk shall execute and deliver to the purchaser a good and sufficient title to the said premises free from all claims and liens of the parties to this action.
It is further ordered that the plaintiff, T. J. Boozer, or other persons, may become a purchaser at such sale, and that the purchaser or purchasers be let into possession of the premises upon the production of the Clerk’s deed; that as an earnest of good faith the purchaser shall be required to pay to the Clerk of the, Court within a half hour after he has bid the property off the sum of $50 as a deposit on account of his bid, and in default thereof the Clerk of Court shall immediately resell the same before the courthouse door without further advertisement to the highest bidder upon the same terms above, mentioned.
The following is a description of the real estate ordered sold:
“All that certain tract of land in Bull Swamp township, County of Lexington, and state aforesaid, containing one hundred seventy-one (171) acres, more, or less, and bounded on the north by Swansea public road, on east by lands of S. P. Harsey, on the south by lands of Annie L. Martin, and on the west by lands of J. J. Mack, and by lands of J. W. Blaine and Carrie B. Blaine. Being tracts Nos. 8, 9 and 10 as shown by plat of the same made by H. R. Schoenberg, dated the 8th day of January, 1918. Said tract of land included the old Uriah Jeffcoat mill site.”
Messrs. Met tin & Sturkie and Timmerman & Graham, for appellant,
cite: Contract should be rescinded or price abated where property does, not include as much as represented: 1 Bay 278; 1 McC., 122; 2 Hill 313; 7 S. C., 58; 86 S. C., 226. What amounts to eviction: 63 N. Y. Supp., 88; 5 Ind., 393; 44 N. Y., 382; 96 N. W., 1035; 7 R. C. L., 1155; 3 Hill L., 588. General warranty includes covenants of possession: 2 Speer 649; 102 S. C., 374.
Messrs. Bfird & Carroll and B. B. Bri-day, for respondent,
cité: In an executed contract purchaser must show- mistake and damage from such mistake: 2 Hill Law 661; 7 S. C, 47; 13 S. C., 203; 86 S. C., 226; 113 S. C., 233; 91 S. C., 496; 57 S. C., 386; 86 S. C., 201. Abatement on account of paramount title will not be allowed before eviction: 1 Rich. Eq., 404. Burden on appellant to show error: 117 S. C., 454; 116 S. C., 1.
December 18, 1923.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Watts.
The respondent, T. J. Boozer, instituted this action in the Court of Common Pleas for Lexington County, March, 1921, against the appellants, Jerome R. Gunter et al., to foreclose a purchase-money mortgage executed by appellant, Gunter, on the 18th day of January, 1918, which mortgage, covered the tract of land mentioned and described in the complaint and set out in the case. The defendant appellant filed an answer in which he sets up a partial failure of consideration and fraud, and asks for a rescission of the contract or an abatement of the purchase price. The case was heard at the November, 1922, term of the Court of Common Pleas for Lexington County, by his Honor, Judge W. H. Townsend, who found that the plaintiff respondent was entitled to a decree of foreclosure for the unpaid balance due upon the notes and mortgage foreclosed.
When the decree of his Honor, Judge Townsend, was filed, the appellant by 15 exceptions alleged error. The first exception complains of error as to the amount found due by his Honor on the notes and mortgage and judgment given therefor. The other exceptions practically impute error on the part of his Honor in holding that the appellant was not entitled to a cancellation of the mortgage or to an abatement of $2,000 on the purchase price.
Let the decree of Judge Townsend be reported.
The appellant is confronted by the proposition that it is incumbent on him to show that the finding of the Circuit Judge is contrary to the weight of the evidence, and, failing to do this, the judgment of the, Circuit Court should be affirmed.
As to the amount found due by his Honor, his finding is supported by an abundance of evidence. His Honor is correct in holding that the plat of Schoenberg in evidence, as Exhibits 8 and 10, does not accurately locate the mill site, dam, and pond. We think by the plat, however, that the dam site, and a small portion of the pond is on the land conveyed to the Blaines; but we do not think that the appellant is entitled to an abatement in this suit.
There, is no evidence showing that the dam site is on a rocky shoal, with special value as a dam site. There is very little land covered by the Blaine plat that appellant claims, and we fail to see how his charge, of fraud, deceit, and damage can be sustained.
The appellant has not been ousted by a paramount title in another (Moore v. Beard, 91 S. C., 496; 74 S. E., 1062, and cases cited therein), and we are of the opinion that .he has failed to' show that the findings of Judge Townsend were against the weight of the testimony.
All exceptions are overruled, and judgment affirmed.
Mr. Chiee Justice Gary and Mr. Justice Fraser concur.
Messrs. Justices Cothran and Marion dissent.