Public-domain · open source

184 S.C. 498

193 S.E 51

Smith v. Thomas

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided October 7, 1937

Supreme Court of South Carolina · decided 1937-10-07

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently May 1956

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1937-10-07

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Baker.

¶2 This is an action in claim and delivery in the usual form for possession of one Ford truck and Great Dane trailer bottomed upon a past-due purchase-price mortgage. The mortgagors (appellants) are residents and citizens of Colleton County, and the personal property above described is usually kept, that is, stored when not in use, in Colleton County. While the property was temporarily in Jasper *500 County, this action was commenced in said last-mentioned county, and the truck and trailer seized by the sheriff of that county.

¶3 The appellants moved for an order changing the place of trial from Jasper to Colleton County based on the facts stated above, which motion was refused, and this appeal followed.

¶4 We are of the opinion that the cases cited by Hon. J. Henry Johnson, Circuit Judge, in his order refusing the motion, which order will be reported, are controlling, and that the exception should be, and it is hereby, overruled.

¶5 Affirmed.

Mr. Chibe Justice Stabler and Messrs. Justices Boni-iam and FishburnE concur. Mr. Justice Carter did not participate on account of illness.

Download

Copy

Embed on your site

Hover to preview · click to copy the code

Search Wikipedia →

Case posture

Posture: Before JOHNSON, J., Jasper, June, 1937. Affirmed.Action by J.R. Smith, trading under the name of Ridgeland Motor Company, against H.B. Thomas and another. From an order denying motion to change the venue, defendants appeal. The order of Judge Johnson follows: This matter came before me on a motion to change the venue on the ground that the action was brought in the wrong county. The record shows that the property involved in this action was taken by the sheriff of Jasper County, in Ridgeland, S.C. Section 420 of the Code provides that an action brought for the recovery of personal property, distrained for any cause, must be tried in the county in which the subject of the action is situated. The Supreme Court has construed this section in the cases of All v. Williams , 87 S.C. 101 , 68 S.E., 1041 , Ann. Cas., 1912-B, 837, and Williams v. Rollins , 107 S.C. 440 , 93 S.E., 1 . In the Williams case the Court said: The action should have been brought in the County of Bamberg, where the mules, the subject of the action, were at the time of the commencement of the action. It also appeared from the complaint that the defendant in that case wrongfully seized and removed the mules from Barnwell County to Bamberg County. In view of those authorities, I am compelled to hold that the action was brought in the proper county. It is therefore ordered that the motion for a change of venue be, and is hereby, refused.

Source: CourtListener

Court

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Parallel citations

193 S.E 51