103 S.E. 516 (S.C. 1920), 10417, Summerton Live Stock Co. v. Cleveland Mfg. Co.
|Citation:||103 S.E. 516, 114 S.C. 186|
|Opinion Judge:||GAGE, J.|
|Party Name:||SUMMERTON LIVE STOCK CO. v. CLEVE-LAND MFG. CO. ET AL.|
|Attorney:||L. E. Wood and M. W. Seabrook, both of Sumter, for appellants. J. J. Cantey, of Summerton, and Charlton Du Rant, of Manning, for respondent.|
|Case Date:||June 28, 1920|
|Court:||Supreme Court of South Carolina|
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Clarendon County; John S. Wilson, Judge.
[114 S.C. 187] Action by the Summerton Live Stock Company against the Cleveland Manufacturing Company and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.
The appeal is from a formal order of the circuit court which affirmed the report of a referee.
The issues tried by the referee were both of law and fact, and they arise out of a controversy between the Summerton Live Stock Company, a domestic corporation engaged in the business of keeping a stable, and the Cleveland Manufacturing Company, a North Carolina corporation engaged in the business of manufacturing wood veneer out of poplar logs, all in Clarendon county, of this state.
The substance of the controversy is the keep of six mules, which keep is alleged to have started early in 1917 and continued up to December 16, 1917, and is alleged to be worth the lump sum of $648.02.
The mules were stabled with the Summerton Company by one Early, a party named in the action, but not served, and now, of course, out of the case.
The mules were used in the logging business, and the Summerton Company thought they were Early's mules.
It turned out that the Cleveland Company had a mortgage on the mules throughout 1917, and on December 6, 1917, it took from Early a deed of conveyance to the mules.
There were many special proceedings and motions had and made in the case before issue was joined before the referee; but they have faded out of view and call for no comment.
[114 S.C. 189] The plaintiff does not deny that, if it gave credit to Early alone throughout 1917, then the Cleveland Company is not liable therefor.
The plaintiff, however, alleges that throughout 1917 the Cleveland Company was conscious of the keep of the mules by the plaintiff, and that it acquiesced therein, that it benefited thereby, and that it is therefore liable in law to pay for the keep.
The referee did not consider those issues, but there is no testimony...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP