Tate v. Brazier

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Tate v. Brazier

105 S.E. 413, 115 S.C. 283, 1920 S.C. LEXIS 225

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedDecember 20, 1920

Docket10549

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 105 S.E. 413 (Tate v. Brazier) 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

Tate v. Brazier, 105 S.E. 413, 115 S.C. 283, 1920 S.C. LEXIS 225 (S.C. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court, was delivered by

Mr. Justice Watts.

The plaintiff was injured by an automobile owned and operated by Wood. A few days afterwards Wood sold the automobile to Smith. Smith in turn sold it to the appellant for $750 cash.

Plaintiff was injured November 15, 1919. On January 30, 1920, he commenced suit for personal injury against Wood and Brazier, and attached autorriobile in Braier’s hand. Brazier, when he purchased the machine, had no notice of the injury of plaintiff by the machine when owned and operated by Wood. The plaintiff obtained a verdict for $600. There is no question of Wood’s'liability. He does not appeal. Brazier does, and raised one issue, .as to whether or not the automobile was subject to attachment, levy, and sale under plaintiff’s lien after the same had passed into the hands of an innocent third party without notice.

The exceptions cannot be sustained. The act of the legislature is plain and specific, and gives the plaintiff, a lien, and under the act plea of innocent purchaser cannot avail the appellant. This Court has passed and construed that act in case of Merchants and Planters Bank v. Brigman, 106 S. C. 362, 91 S. E. 332, L. R. A. 1917e, 925,

The exception is overruled, and judgment affirmed.

Messrs-. Justices Hydrick and Eraser concur. Mr. Chiee Justice Gary and Mr. Justice Gage absent on account of sickness.

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 Watts.

The plaintiff was injured by an automobile owned and operated by Wood. A few days afterwards Wood sold the automobile to Smith. Smith in turn sold it to the appellant for $750 cash.

Plaintiff was injured November 15, 1919. On January 30, 1920, he commenced suit for personal injury against Wood and Brazier, and attached autorriobile in Braier’s hand. Brazier, when he purchased the machine, had no notice of the injury of plaintiff by the machine when owned and operated by Wood. The plaintiff obtained a verdict for $600. There is no question of Wood’s'liability. He does not appeal. Brazier does, and raised one issue, .as to whether or not the automobile was subject to attachment, levy, and sale under plaintiff’s lien after the same had passed into the hands of an innocent third party without notice.

The exceptions cannot be sustained. The act of the legislature is plain and specific, and gives the plaintiff, a lien, and under the act plea of innocent purchaser cannot avail the appellant. This Court has passed and construed that act in case of Merchants and Planters Bank v. Brigman, 106 S. C. 362, 91 S. E. 332, L. R. A. 1917e, 925,

The exception is overruled, and judgment affirmed.

Messrs-. Justices Hydrick and Eraser concur. Mr. Chiee Justice Gary and Mr. Justice Gage absent on account of sickness.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 S.E. 413, 115 S.C. 283, 1920 S.C. LEXIS 225, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tate-v-brazier-sc-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack