52 S.E.2d 424
16191Supreme Court of South Carolina.
March 7, 1949.
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Orangeburg County, M.M. Mann, Judge.
Messrs. Moss Moss and J. Stokes Salley, of Orangeburg for Appellants, cite: As to Act No. 516 of the Acts of 1946 not extinguishing the money judgment after the expiration of ten years from the date of entry. 71 S.C. 246, 249, 50 S.E. 787; 68 S.C. 528, 539, 47 S.E. 984; 346 Pa. 13,
Page 318
29 A.2d 328, 144 A.L.R. 849, 851; 172 S.C. 16, 23, 172 S.E. 689; 76 N.Y.S. 631, 635, 72 App. Div. 505; 13 N.Y. (3 Kern.) 378, 394. As to appellant’s right to maintain instant action which is in form of creditor’s bill: 71 S.C. 246, 249, 50 S.E. 787; 32 S.C. 139, 10 S.E. 931; 32 S.E. 378, 10 S.E. 108; 32 S.C. 383, 10 S.C. 1082; 40 S.C. 255, 270. As to the principles which must govern the construction of Section 354, Code of 1942: 132 S.C. 241, 250, 251, 128 S.E. 172; 297 U.S. 1, 56 S.Ct. 312, 325 As to appellants’ right to maintain instant action not being impaired by legislation enacted subsequent to the accrual of that right: 70 S.C. 254, 49 S.E. 869; 37 C.J. 684, par. 2; 34 Am. Jur. 14, par. 2; 34 Am. Jur. 18, par. 9; 34 Am. Jur. 36, par. 31; 53 C.J.S. 901, Sec. 1-b; 15 Rich. 158; 32 S.C. 139, 10 S.E. 931; 190 S.C. 457, 3 S.E.2d 543, 544, 545. As to proper construction of Act No. 516 of the 1946 Acts of the South Carolina General Assembly: 32 S.C. 226, 227, 228; 40 S.C. 255, 269; 207 S.C. 63, 34 S.E.2d 488.
Messrs. J.M. Brailsford, Jr., T.B. Bryant, Jr., and A.J. Hydrick, all of Orangeburg, for Respondent, cite: As to Act No. 516 of the Acts of the General Assembly for the year 1946 being constitutional: 211 S.C. 342, 45 S.E.2d 335; 212 S.C. 6, 46 S.E.2d 179. As to the instant action being untimely: 71 S.C. 246, 50 S.E. 787; 197 S.C. 217, 14 S.E.2d 900.
March 7, 1949.
PER CURIAM.
This appeal is an attack upon the soundness of two former decisions of this Court, namely, United States Rubber Co. v. McManus, 211 S.C. 342, 45 S.E.2d 335, and Hardee v. Lynch, 212 S.C. 6, 46 S.E.2d 179, which it is sought to overrule. They construed and applied Act No. 516 of 1946, 44 Stat. at Large, p. 1436, in such manner as to thwart the purpose of appellant’s proceeding, commenced in December
Page 319
1947, which is for leave to bring an action looking to the collection from debtor’s estate of a money judgment over twenty years old, revived in 1936. The lower court refused relief upon the authority of the cited decisions.
Upon careful review of them in the light of appellant’s earnest argument, we are satisfied that they were correctly decided and see no necessity to attempt to add to the reasoning and authorities which the opinions contain. Hence, appellant’s exceptions in this case must be overruled.
Affirmed.
BAKER, C.J., and FISHBURNE, STUKES, TAYLOR, and OXNER, J.J., concur.