Legal Opinion · Dissent

Moultis v. Degen

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided March 24, 1983No. 21770Published

1DissentNess, Justice

I most emphatically disagree.

The critical issue is whether a cause of action in tort is a creditor’s claim within the meaning of the statute. In accord with our previous decisions, I would hold it is not.

In Wallace v. Timmons, 232 S. C. 311, 101 S. E. (2d) 844 (1958) this Court stated that S. C. Code Ann. § 19-474 (1956), now codified at § 21-15-640 (1976), refers to “claims of creditors, and relate(s) to debts of the testator payable from his estate.” (Emphasis added.) This creditor-debtor relationship was most recently recognized in Southern Coatings & Chemical Co., Inc. v. Belcher, 274 S.…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Frei v. BrownleeNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1952
  2. Bourne v. Maryland Casualty Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1937
  3. Collins v. RuffnerTennessee Supreme Court · 1947
  4. Wallace v. TimmonsSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1958
  5. Hancock v. PyleMississippi Supreme Court · 1941

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API