Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

78 S.C. 294

58 S.E 941

Armour & Co. v. Ross

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided November 4, 1907

Supreme Court of South Carolina · decided 1907-11-04

Before DanTzeER, J., Cherokee. Action by Armour & Co. ag-ainst M. L. Ross and W. A. Turner. From judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. cites: Defense of innocent purchaser zvithout notice cannot avail defendants: 1 Bay., 299; 2 Bay., 505; 4 Strob., 427 yl McC., 1; 10 Rich., 83; 12 Rich., 451; 27 S. C., 134; 11 How., 209; 22 Am. Dec., 220; 59 Am.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““All deeds of conveyance of lands, tenements or hereditaments,” etc., “and generally all instruments in writing now required by law to be recorded,” etc., “shall be valid so as to affect from the time of such delivery or execution the rights of subsequent creditors (whether lien creditors or simple contract creditors) or purchasers for valuable consideration without notice, only when recorded within forty days from the time of such delivery or execution, in the office of register of mesne conveyances,” etc., "where the property affected thereby is situated.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including In re Bailey

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed · Decided 1907-11-04

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently December 1955

3 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

30190719101920193019401950decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1I dissent, as I am unable to agree that the amendment of 1898, making section *301 2456 of Civil Code apply to the protection of simple contract creditors as well as lien creditors, had no effect on section 2655, requiring record of certain agreements between vendor and vendee, and bailor and bailee.

¶2By the act of 1876 (16 Stat., 92), it was provided, deeds, mortgages and other specified papers, "and generally all instruments of writing now required by law to be recorded," etc., should be valid so as to affect subsequent creditors or purchasers without notice only when recorded within forty days. In 1882, an act was passed providing: "Every agreement between the vendor and vendee, bailor and bailee, of personal property, whereby the vendor or bailor shall reserve to himself any interest in the same, shall be null and void as to subsequent creditors or purchasers for valuable consideration without notice unless the same be reduced to writing and recorded in the manner now provided by law for recording of mortgages: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall apply to livery stable keepers, or inn keepers, or any other persons letting or hiring property for a temporary purpose." Clearly, the main purpose and effect of this act was to make agreements of the kind mentioned between vendors and vendees, and bailors and bailees, "instruments required by law to be recorded," within the meaning of the act of 1876, and such instruments fell as fully under that statute as if the statute had been amended, and the agreements between vendors and vendees, and bailors and bailees had been mentioned along with deeds and mortgages. When, therefore, the statute of 1876 was amended in 1898 to the form of section 2456 of Civil Code, so as to protect not only subsequent lien creditors but also subsequent simple contract creditors, the amendment applied to all "instruments required by law to be recorded," and agreements between bailors and bailees, like that involved in this case, are such instruments.

¶3For these reasons, I think the judgment of the Circuit Court should be affirmed. *302

/78/sc/294 · .json · Public domain