Manship v. Newton
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Krugh, J., Marlboro, February, 1910. Action by Mary A. Manship and G. J. Manship, executors of Aaron T. Manship, against Hope H. Newton, Sr., FI ope H. Newton, Jr., and John Barrentine, administrator of David A. Berry. Hope H. Newton, Sr., appeals.
Read the full summary
Before Krugh, J., Marlboro, February, 1910. Action by Mary A. Manship and G. J. Manship, executors of Aaron T. Manship, against Hope H. Newton, Sr., FI ope H. Newton, Jr., and John Barrentine, administrator of David A. Berry. Hope H. Newton, Sr., appeals. Administrator of deceased partner is necessary party: Rice’s Ch. 48; 43 S. C. 243; 14 S. C. 159. Under the pleadings, Newton is not charged with constructive trust: 78 S. C. 494. Express trust cannot be proved by parol: 31 S. C. 75; 2 Rich. Eq. 177; 6 Rich. Eq. 351; 14 S. C. 334; Harp. Eq. 158; 31 S. C. 75. Surviving partner may buy…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Fraser.
This was an action by the -respondents as executrix and executor of Aaron T., Manship, deceased, against the appellant, Hope IT. Newton, Sr., and Hope H. Newton, Jr., and John Barrentine, as administrator of David A. Berry, deceased.
The action as against the appellant, Elope EE Newton, Sr., was for an accounting as surviving partner in the Manship Company. The appellant answered and then it was referred to J. D. McLucas as special referee to hear and report his conclusions of law and fact. The case contains the following:
“The…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Manship v. Newton Et Ux.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1916
- Manship v. NewtonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1916