Baum v. Trantham
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Hudson, J., Kershaw, September, 1893. Action by Baum Bros, against W. D. Trantham. The plaintiffs became the assignees of the several claims mentioned in the opinion on April 30, 1890, and commenced this action to foreclose their mortgage of the town lots in January, 1893. The Circuit decree, omitting its statement, was as follows: Unquestionably the general rule is that the debtor may direct the application of payments at the time they are made.
Read the full summary
Before Hudson, J., Kershaw, September, 1893. Action by Baum Bros, against W. D. Trantham. The plaintiffs became the assignees of the several claims mentioned in the opinion on April 30, 1890, and commenced this action to foreclose their mortgage of the town lots in January, 1893. The Circuit decree, omitting its statement, was as follows: Unquestionably the general rule is that the debtor may direct the application of payments at the time they are made. If he does not then avail himself of his right, it becomes the privilege of the creditor to make such appropriation as he chooses at any time…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Mr. Chief Justice McIver.
The facts of this ease seem t.o be conceded, and the only controversy is as to the legal rights of the parties under the facts. On the 18th July, 1888, the defendant executed a mortgage on two town lots to one H. Baum, to secure the payment of two notes, aggregating the sum of one hundred and seventy-five dollars, which notes, together with the mortgage, were duly assigned to the plaintiffs herein. *107On the 15th of March, 1889, the defendant gave to Baum Bros. & Stein a mortgage on five mules and certain other personal property,…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Barfield v. Coker & Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1906
- Carson v. Cook County Liquor Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1913
- Kendallville Lumber Co. v. BurgerIndiana Court of Appeals · 1928