Segusky v. Williams

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Segusky v. Williams

71 S.E. 971, 89 S.C. 414, 1911 S.C. LEXIS 277

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJuly 31, 1911

Docket7992

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 71 S.E. 971 (Segusky v. Williams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Segusky v. Williams, 71 S.E. 971, 89 S.C. 414, 1911 S.C. LEXIS 277 (S.C. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Hydrick.

1 2 This appeal is from an order granting a nonsuit in an action for malicious prosecution. Respondent’s contention that the order is not appealable is untenable. Bowen v. Johnson, 87 S. C. 264. The affidavit upon which the warrant was issued states nothing more than that, at the time and place mentioned, “Lewis Segusky did dispose of property under lien and removing same, all of which is contrary to the form of statute.” The warrant is as follows: “Arrest and bring before me Lewis Segusky. under lien charged with disposing property and the witnesses for the State herein named.” The warrant states no crime, and, therefore, cannot support an action for malicious prosecution. Whaley v. Lawton, 57 S. C. 256, 35 S. E. 558; Aiken v. Cotton Mills, 85 S. C. 180, 67 S. E. 166. In Whaley v. Lawton, the Court said: “A mere sale or disposal of personal property covered 'by a lien is not sufficient to constitute a criminal offense, but it must be accompanied by a failure to pay the debt secured by the lien, or a failure to deposit with the clerk the amount of such debt within ten days.”

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Hydrick.

1 2 This appeal is from an order granting a nonsuit in an action for malicious prosecution. Respondent’s contention that the order is not appealable is untenable. Bowen v. Johnson, 87 S. C. 264. The affidavit upon which the warrant was issued states nothing more than that, at the time and place mentioned, “Lewis Segusky did dispose of property under lien and removing same, all of which is contrary to the form of statute.” The warrant is as follows: “Arrest and bring before me Lewis Segusky. under lien charged with disposing property and the witnesses for the State herein named.” The warrant states no crime, and, therefore, cannot support an action for malicious prosecution. Whaley v. Lawton, 57 S. C. 256, 35 S. E. 558; Aiken v. Cotton Mills, 85 S. C. 180, 67 S. E. 166. In Whaley v. Lawton, the Court said: “A mere sale or disposal of personal property covered 'by a lien is not sufficient to constitute a criminal offense, but it must be accompanied by a failure to pay the debt secured by the lien, or a failure to deposit with the clerk the amount of such debt within ten days.”

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 S.E. 971, 89 S.C. 414, 1911 S.C. LEXIS 277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/segusky-v-williams-sc-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack