DUPONT v. SO. NAT. BANK OF HOUS., TX

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

22515

Attorney(S)

James H. Moss and H. Fred Kuhn, Jr., of Moss, Bailey Dore, Beaufort, and Robert A. Gwinn, of Johnson, Bromberg Leeds, Dallas, Tex., for appellants Southern Nat. Bank, Houston, Tex., Edward J. Brady and John H. Garner. Henry B. Smythe and David B. McCormick, of Buist, Moore, Smythe McGee, Charleston, for appellant Eugene duPont, IV. Colden R. Battey, Jr., of Harvey Battey, Beaufort, for respondent.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

Eugene DUPONT, III, Respondent v. SOUTHERN NATIONAL BANK OF HOUSTON,TEXAS, Trustee, Edward J. Brady, Trustee, John H. Garner, Trustee, EugeneduPont, IV, a Minor, Margaret Irene Jones, Daphne Burma Vaughan, LeslieDudley Myrin, Genette Lee duPont, a Minor, John duPont Waters, VirginiaIrene Waters, Benjamin Franklin Vaughan, IV, Cuthbert Lata Myrin, Jr., aMinor, and Mimi duPont Myrin, a Minor, Defendants of whom SouthernNational Bank of Houston, Texas, Trustee, Edward J. Brady, Trustee, JohnH. Garner, Trustee, and Eugene duPont, IV, are, Appellants.

Submitted Feb. 26, 1986.

Decided March 31, 1986.

GREGORY, Justice:

Respondent commenced this action to set aside several deeds alleging mistake in conveyances to a trust. Appellants moved for the case to be transferred to the jury roster. This appeal is from the denial of that motion. We affirm.

The complaint was drawn with three causes of action; however, all three essentially allege mistake in the conveyances.

In an action to set aside a deed, a party's right to a jury trial is determined by whether the dispute raises legal or equitable issues. Union Central Life Ins. Co. v. Crouch, 189 S.C. 57, 200 S.E. 356 (1938). Respondent's complaint, although poorly drafted, raises a simple question — whether respondent was mistaken in his conveyances to the trust. This Court, through long-established precedent, has recognized that an action alleging mistake is in equity. See Turner v. Washington Realty Co., 128 S.C. 271, 122 S.E. 768 (1924). Therefore, the trial judge properly denied appellants' motion.

Turner addressed the propriety of relief in an action based on mistake; however, it is clear that resolution of the issue in that case was dependent on a preliminary finding that the action was in equity.

Affirmed.

NESS, C.J., and HARWELL, CHANDLER and FINNEY, JJ., concur.

Comments