Smith v. Thomas

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Smith v. Thomas

193 S.E. 51, 184 S.C. 498, 1937 S.C. LEXIS 180

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedOctober 7, 1937

Docket14541

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 193 S.E. 51 (Smith v. Thomas) 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

Smith v. Thomas, 193 S.E. 51, 184 S.C. 498, 1937 S.C. LEXIS 180 (S.C. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Baker.

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.

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.

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.

Affirmed.

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

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 Baker.

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.

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.

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.

Affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 S.E. 51, 184 S.C. 498, 1937 S.C. LEXIS 180, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-thomas-sc-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack