Williams v. Simon

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Williams v. Simon

122 S.E. 772, 128 S.C. 315, 1924 S.C. LEXIS 216

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedMay 6, 1924

Docket11496

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 122 S.E. 772 (Williams v. Simon) 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

Williams v. Simon, 122 S.E. 772, 128 S.C. 315, 1924 S.C. LEXIS 216 (S.C. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice; Marion.

In an action for damages, growing out of the alleged tortious failure of the defendants to ship to plaintiffs- a particular variety of lettuce seed ordered, it was alleged in the complaint,- inter alia, that the plaintiffs were residents of Beaufort County, S. C.; that the defendants were copartners doing business under the firm name of I. N. Simon & Son, at Philadelphia, Pa., and that the said defendants were nonresidents of the State of South Carolina. The summons and complaint were personally served upon one of the defendants in Beaufort County, S. C., while said defendant was temporarily in that county. Before time for answering expired, the defendants appeared for the sole purpose of demurring to the complaint upon the ground that it appeared upon the face thereof that the cause of action was in per *317 sonam; that the defendants were nonresidents of this State, and that the Court had no jurisdiction of the persons of the defendants. From an order sustaining the demurrer upon the foregoing grounds, the plaintiffs appeal.

We are clearly of the opinion that the order of the learned Circuit Judge was erroneous. An' allegation of the complaint that the defendant is a nonresident does not-warrant an inference of fact or a conclusion of law that the Court has no jurisdiction of the person of such defendant in an action brought in a Court of general jurisdiction. The Court’s jurisdiction of the person of the defendant is not determined by the fact of his nonresidence, but by the fact of personal service of process within the State. Sections 389, 390, 378, Code of Civ. Proc., 1922. Ford v. Calhoun, 53 S. C., 111-113; 30 S. E., 830. Stephens v. Ringling, 102 S. C., 333; 86 S. E., 683. And see Pollock v. C. I. B., Etc., Association, 48 S. C., 65; 25 S. E., 977; 59 Am. St. Rep., 695. Chaffee v. Postal Tel. Co., 35 S. C., 372; 14 S. E., 764. People’s Building & Loan Association v. Mayfield, 42 S. C., 424; 20 S. E., 290. McKinne v. Augusta, 5 Rich. Eq., 55. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S., 714; 24 L. Ed., 565; 11 Cyc., 666. Hence the fact appearing upon the face of the complaint that the denfedant is a nonresident is not such affirmative showing that the Court has no jurisdiction of the defendant’s person as will sustain a demurrer.

The order appealed from is reversed, with leave to defendants to answer within fifteen days from the date of the filing of the remittitur in the Circuit Court.

Reversed.

Messrs. Justices Watts, Fraser, and Cothran concur.

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; Marion.

In an action for damages, growing out of the alleged tortious failure of the defendants to ship to plaintiffs- a particular variety of lettuce seed ordered, it was alleged in the complaint,- inter alia, that the plaintiffs were residents of Beaufort County, S. C.; that the defendants were copartners doing business under the firm name of I. N. Simon & Son, at Philadelphia, Pa., and that the said defendants were nonresidents of the State of South Carolina. The summons and complaint were personally served upon one of the defendants in Beaufort County, S. C., while said defendant was temporarily in that county. Before time for answering expired, the defendants appeared for the sole purpose of demurring to the complaint upon the ground that it appeared upon the face thereof that the cause of action was in per *317 sonam; that the defendants were nonresidents of this State, and that the Court had no jurisdiction of the persons of the defendants. From an order sustaining the demurrer upon the foregoing grounds, the plaintiffs appeal.

We are clearly of the opinion that the order of the learned Circuit Judge was erroneous. An' allegation of the complaint that the defendant is a nonresident does not-warrant an inference of fact or a conclusion of law that the Court has no jurisdiction of the person of such defendant in an action brought in a Court of general jurisdiction. The Court’s jurisdiction of the person of the defendant is not determined by the fact of his nonresidence, but by the fact of personal service of process within the State. Sections 389, 390, 378, Code of Civ. Proc., 1922. Ford v. Calhoun, 53 S. C., 111-113; 30 S. E., 830. Stephens v. Ringling, 102 S. C., 333; 86 S. E., 683. And see Pollock v. C. I. B., Etc., Association, 48 S. C., 65; 25 S. E., 977; 59 Am. St. Rep., 695. Chaffee v. Postal Tel. Co., 35 S. C., 372; 14 S. E., 764. People’s Building & Loan Association v. Mayfield, 42 S. C., 424; 20 S. E., 290. McKinne v. Augusta, 5 Rich. Eq., 55. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S., 714; 24 L. Ed., 565; 11 Cyc., 666. Hence the fact appearing upon the face of the complaint that the denfedant is a nonresident is not such affirmative showing that the Court has no jurisdiction of the defendant’s person as will sustain a demurrer.

The order appealed from is reversed, with leave to defendants to answer within fifteen days from the date of the filing of the remittitur in the Circuit Court.

Reversed.

Messrs. Justices Watts, Fraser, and Cothran concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 S.E. 772, 128 S.C. 315, 1924 S.C. LEXIS 216, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-simon-sc-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack