Citation Codes Equivalent Citations citation codes Docket Number 15481 Advocates Messrs. Hagood, Rivers Young, of Charleston, Counsel for Appellants, cite: As to application of the "Doctrine of Dependent Relative Revocation, which is the Doctrine of Presumed Intention": 157 S.C. 407, 154 S.E., 426; (England), L. Rep., Chanc. Div., 1934, p. 384, at pp. 400 and 401; 23 Ga. 332, at p. 337; 30 Miss., 274; Pickering (Mass.), 535, at 545; 33 Harvard L. Review, p. 356; 31 S.C. Eq. (10 Rich. Eq.), 538; 91 S.C. 101, 74 S.E., 135; L. Rep., Chanc. Div., 1928, 24, at p. 29; Ward v. Van Der Loeff, H. of L. (1924), pp. 684 and 685; L. Rep. (1916), 1 Chanc., 552; L. Rep., 6 Eq., 225; 286 N.W., 735; 1 P. Wms., 345; 28 R.C.L., at p. 177; 28 R.C.L., at p. 142; 65 Conn. Rep., 149; 125 Penn., 287, 10 A.S. R., 590; 142 Ga. 855; 83 S.E., 949, Ann. Cas., 1916-C, p. 4; 3 Ves., 37. As to "Laches as a Bar to Recovery": 135 S.C. 190, 133 S.E., 709; 7 Rich. Eq., p. 230; 199 S.C. 363, 19 S.E.2d 648; 1 McC. Eq., 310; 19 A. J., p. 338, Sect. 493; 69 U.S. 87, 17 L.Ed., 936; 196 U.S. 189, 42 L.Ed., 711; 169 U.S. 237, 42 L.Ed., 730; 105 U.S. 193, 37 L.Ed., 1049; 120 U.S. 377, 30 L.Ed., 718, at p. 720; 1 How., 161, 11 L.Ed., p. 86. Mr. H.L. Erckmann, Messrs. Barnwell Whaley, and Messrs. Mitchell Horlbeck, all of Charleston, Counsel for Respondents, cite: As to Res Judicata, or Law of the Case: 200 S.C. 96, 20 S.E.2d 623, at 625; Id., at 635; Id., at 627; Id., at 632; 65 S.C. 410, 43 S.E., 884; 194 S.C. 221, 9 S.E.2d 433; 2 R.C.L., 223; 164 S.C. 2, 161 S.E., 769, 774; 196 S.C. 51, 12 S.E.2d 545, 550; 78 S.C. 105, 58 S.E., 955; 92 S.C. 354, 75 S.C. 542, 544; 84 S.C. 193, 65 S.E., 1050; 128 S.C. 478, 123 S.E., 100; 93 S.C. 148, 76 S.E., 117 ( 88 S.C. 31, 70 S.E., 403); 13 S.C. 303, 133 S.E., 547 ( 132 S.C. 10, 129 S.E., 84); 17 S.E.2d 230; 171 S.C. 301, 172 S.E., 135; 118 S.C. 81, 109 S.E., 799; 171 S.C. 221, 171 S.E., 42; 111 S.C. 400, 98 S.E., 144. As to `Laches as a Bar to Recovery": 200 S.C. 96, 20 S.E.2d 623. As to "Case of First Impression" in South Carolina: 4 S.C. L. (2 Brev.), 279; 11 S.C.L. (2 Nott McC.), 272; 14 S.C. 458; 200 S.C. 96, 20 S.E.2d 623, 628-639. Judges Per Curiam: See more information ... Smart Summary Please sign up to generate summary. CHARLESTON LIBRARY SOCIETY ET AL. v. CITIZENS SOUTHERN NATIONAL BANK OFS.C. ET AL. December 22, 1942. Per Curiam: The disposition by this Court of a former appeal in this case is reported in 200 S.C. 96, 20 S.E.2d 623. The exceptions in the instant appeal challenge the correctness of that decision and counsel were allowed to argue against it pursuant to proper petition for the right. Upon consideration again of the question involved, the earlier decision mentioned is adhered to and the exceptions thereabout overruled. There is no necessity to again add to or elaborate upon the reasons clearly and ably stated by the trial Judge, whose decision was under review in the former appeal. Other exceptions now presented relate to the alleged defense of laches, but the question was not urged in oral argument. However, it is so well disposed of in the Circuit Decree that so much of the latter as deals with it will be reported and is adopted as the judgment of this Court. The exceptions are overruled and the judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BONHAM and MESSRS. ASSOCIATE JUSTICES BAKER, FISHBURNE and STUKES concur.